I just finished watching the Two Towers again. I saw it at christmas, but I'd almost forgotten just how amazing Smeagol/Gollum actually was for a CG character. So I was thinking "Well, how long will it be before they can do human characters that are TOTALLY convincing?" 10 years? I'd say even less. Think how far they've come in the last 10 years. So, how long before they don't even NEED actors? OK, for most stuff it'll always be cheaper to use humans. But the day when Nicole Kidman (or whoever) asks for $10 million for a movie and they say "Hmm... we could do a CG char for less than that". That'll be the day actors start to become extinct. Is this OT? I don't think so. What will WE be doing with Poser in 10 years time? Ten years ago, Poser was called 'Mannequin' and (by all reports - I never saw it), was about as primitive as they come. So, as CG in movies progresses, the technology will trickle down to us 'cheapies' at the 'low' end of the CG market. Oooh! Gimme MASSIVE for Poser scenes! That would be fun! And what about copyright of a human being? If we can do Nicole Kidman in, say, 20 years time, how do actors stop us using their image? I heard a rumor a couple of years back that some Hollywood people had taken out copyright on their facial and body features, but I don't know if this was true. Well, it may be pure speculation, but it's good to look up from the keyboard every now and again. No? mac

Good question. My guess is that actors will not become extinct, but they will become cheaper... and they may have to find a wider range of outlets for their talents. Over the years many professions have become extinct or too cheap to be worth the trouble. Each time, the drive to do certain things has been temporarily frustrated, but always finds a new way to express itself.

I wouldn't waste 2 cents to go to the theater and watch laser projectionss of Poserlike dolls. I paid $64 for a musical because I wanted to see real human beings who might not have a perfect evening but I wanted to see what only they could uniquely do. There is nothing unique about the doll clones...it is the pure rigidity of them that cannot replace actors who bring flawed humanity to a stage or a movie set. Fortunately I'll be dead before the perfect people take over. And I am so glad that's true.

IMHO you can replace Costner with a mannequin and nobody would notice. However, Depp? Caine? Brannaugh? Another thing to remember is that Gollum looks so good BECAUSE Andy Serkin is an actor, not because some mesh-maker did a fine job of construction. (I'm sticking with the males, because we've lost Katherine Hepburn and I can't think of any one to replace her.) Carolly

There are actors and estates of deceased actors who already have licensing arrangements for the use of their likenesses. If I recall correctly, this came about several years ago when Ginger Rogers bitterly sued some company that had made a commercial using some footage of she and Fred Astaire that had been digitally altered and recontextualized. Not quite the same thing as virtual actors, but that's what woke Hollywood up to the issue. This sort of thing became directly relevant to the Poser world when DAZ released their Anna Marie Goddard virtual clone package, as I'm sure many here recall. :-)
In hope and trust that there will always be a place for live actors. They play's the thing, and there are nuances of human expression which aren't as exciting when duplicated. I think that WETA's Gollum is the most amazing virtual actor yet by a long shot (sorry, JarJar,) but let's not forget that MoCap technology and the very fine actor Andy Serkis are what gave Gollum the better part of his expressiveness. Director Peter Jackson insisted that the CG animators follow Serkis' cues at every stage, and not "correct" his acting. In fact, at one point, they were instructed to re-design Gollum to look slightly more like Serkis himself. Can't wait to see ROTK!

Just to add more detail to the point, Gollum's library of facial expressions were collected as MoCap from Andy Serkis preproduction, refined, then called up by animators to match his dialogue after they MoCapped his body movements.

BTW, I will admit that 85% of the actors on television could be replaced by Poser clones and I doubt if it would make much difference. But that's my bias. And I like television. Really I do. But please don't clone Diana Riggs into a blanded out Poser youth version of herself...she's very fine these days just as she is (and you haven't been watching Mystery theater if you disagree).

What would be great would be to say some of the great stars of yesteryear playing with living actors of today. Still, the great actors bring something to the role that a computer can't do, YET.

A synthetic version of a dead actor will never be the same as the real actor. Just won't be. Ever. Technology isn't the answer to everything. What made the actor unique is missing and can't be duplicated. You can have sound alikes, and look alikes, but the heart and the mind is gone. Of course I realize in most movies you wouldn't notice the difference but once in awhile the human touch is important. And I worry that our already youth obsessed culture will get stuck on the idea that only young versions of actors should be permitted to exist...which would mean eliminating very fine older actors (of either sex) who are already denied roles in favor of callow youths, and we miss out on diversity. I, for one, want to see how Johnny Depp develops as an actor as he gets older (and will he ever change his name to "John") .... I wouldn't want him to stay at one level when it is his experience that makes his acting so intersting. I want to see Meryl Streep continue to act. I don't want every woman to be Jennifer Anniston or J Lo; and I certainly don't want every man to be Ben what's his face, or whoever the latest hunk of the moment is.

I wish to see Elvis fighting over Marilyn with James dean...That would be cool...and 1 day...it will be possible. LOL

'I wouldn't waste 2 cents to go to the theater and watch laser projectionss of Poserlike dolls' Hey, I couldn't agree more. Just to elaborate here, I'm not advocating this as a great idea. I think it stinks, and personally, I'd rather spend an evening throwing up than pay good money to see on-screen meshes. But.... there's not much doubt that it'll soon be possible. Voices? Expression? All that will be synthed sooner or later. Good grief! All you have to do is look at the current state of music to see the way the wind's blowing. Sing? Write music? What's that? Do you have a good ass? THAT'S the big question. (Sorry - just been watching a truly dreadful Beyonce performance) Anyway, apart from LOTR, I've never yet seen a movie with CGI that didn't suck like a vacuum. Probably because they always blow the budget on the CGI and only remember to write a plot at the last minute. Mind you, I can think of dozens of 'actors' who might benefit from the CG treatment. Costner? He's a marvel of modern technology compared with Keanu Reeves! In fact, I'm surprised CL didn't base the Dork on Reeves. I'm all for the 'old brigade'. You know.... the ones who spoke lines that you could actually hear, instead of mumbling into their chests. (Depp is an exception - currently the best around). Ah well, maybe we'll have a Depp from DAZ in 10 years. Gotta go. Thunderstorm coming up fast. mac

They so nicely replaced Laura Dern in JP3... I didn't notice until I saw the Making Of on the cd.

Ever since Walt Disney made "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" we've been watching and enjoying animated "actors" in movies. When "Beauty and the Beast" was nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award, it did so on the strength of the performances of animated actors. In Japan, anime characters like "Lupin III" are every bit as adored as real actors. Fact is, we've been watching, loving and accepting animated actors for years. Just because the new ones will be C.G. and will look "real" won't matter much. We'll still like them based on the skill of the animator and the story being told. Some day, kids will look at old footage of real, live actors and think it's all very primitive -- just as we do when we look at silent film actors with their white makeup and thick eyeliner. Times (and tastes) change. -jjsemp

I think the question is will it make the story more engaging. Actors that have done CGI films in interviews are always saying wow, it's cool I won't have any work soon. However when it takes roughly 2-3 years to produce a CGI film it's a bit unrealistic that the digital clones will be taking over acting jobs. There are several Japanesse 'actors' that are digital characters, they have licencing agreements through an agent, commercials, TV spots, music CDs just like real flesh people. SO it is sort of happening just not on a large scale yet. Shrek, Final Fantasy (bad script cool CGI), Finding Nemo, Lord Of The Rings, etc use the CGI to enhance the story and there may be more of that. I don't think I would sit through a CGI summer teen love story flick unless is was a fantasy setting or SCI FI that regular actors just could not perform in. Treasure Planet could be an example, I do not think that would have worked near as well with real humans on bluescreen with CGI but that's me. Closer and closer, few more years I'm sure more and more will show up but I still think that stories will drive the medium and the technology will be used to enhance that. Simone with Al Pachino is a great movie on the subject and th ethics of dealin with it all. Even has a button in the movie called "Mimic" which I thought was cute.

Could just anyone have done Robin Williams' or Eddie Murphy's character voices (and mannerisms) in films, or even Sean Connary's dragon? The really distinctive acting personalities will not only find as much work, and high pay, but will have their working careers greatly extended by new technology. But I bet it's a long time, if ever, until pure technology is able to create and access libraries of voices/expressions/actions/mannerisms as efficiently as using professional actors. Especially if they have the opportunity to interact and improvise, instead of just read the lines alone in a recording studio. Yup, Carolly, there will never be another Kate...

Okay, when the Internet came along, everyone predicted the end of libraries because why would you need a building when the Internet opens the world to a computer. Yet attendance at libraries has gone up and people in the profession are now in demand as data miners (I kid you not). When ebooks came out, everyone predicted the end of the printed book, because why would anyone want to carry around a clunky old book when they could carry around a eletronic gadget. Please note that electronic book publishers are bailing out of the business and the print book industry is alive and well. The fact is despite some people's fascination with gadgets and electronics, a substantial number like the human touch. And until we've all been replaced by people who only want stereotypes to stare at, the actors will have jobs. Really. The demise of the actor has been greatly exaggerated, just as the death of the library and the burial of the printed book. Some times the old way really are good. What will happen is that the old and new will merge with neither disappearing completely but one absorbing the other. That's all for me. I'm off to dinner, face to face with a real human being. Gasp.

You can't make me a Ben Affleck or Elvis, in 3d, has to be film or real thing. In Film, a great director, or and some peoples personalitys and Sex appell just come right at ya. I have not have that happen with digal film.

There is one aspect of CGI which has rather successfully replaced prior convention in cinema, and that's in the area of what used to be called matte paintings. There's a charming artfulness to the technique in older films, but it's very detectable, very flat. I remember being stunned byt the natrual vistas and mountain temples of the Scorcese film "Kundun," for example. All CGI, but they looked very real. There's more of that going on in movies now than most people realize, because the eye is so well "fooled." But perhaps virtual landscapes are a subject for the Vue d'Esprit forum, LOL.

I am surprised noone has mentioned the 1981 movie Looker, it's plot was based upon eactly what you are talking about. It was written by Michael Crichton I think...

I personally would like to see digital actors come to the forefront so we don't have to have stories about Jennifer Lopez or Tom Cruise shoved in our faces everywhere we go. The media's idea that I'm interested in what goes on in some actor's life is beyond me.

Nope, live actors will always have a fan following and a demand for them on the screen. I have my favorites and no computerized animation can replace them. Melanie

It's possible..and probable...that this WILL happen. However, those behind the scenes will not be just the technicians, there will be actors. They may not be CALLED actors, but the artistic skills and years of training will be there. If there is to be a database of subtle motions and emotions, it will be created by these people and accessed by their choices as well. Nothing to worry about. Really.

I think it will be some time yet - even some of us young 'ns still prefer real people. I've been on/off a personal 3d movie project, and I have the option of doing the voices entirely in the computer, the programs available are so amazing. But I still want real actors to do the voices, there's just that SOMETHING that isn't there in the programmed dialogue. It's great for some things, but it doesn't replace human voices (yet...) "All you have to do is look at the current state of music to see the way the wind's blowing. Sing? Write music?" mac, I gotta agree. Music is my first love, and I see so much of that scene from the inside. It's sickening where a lot of it has been. My band got passed in the 90's over at a showcase in NY by the exec who signed Britney and Christina. His quote: "We're into 16-year old blonde girls with spunk." Not a word about their "talent". It is purely entertainment now, vastly different from the music scene of 30 years ago. But there are still innovators in music - many are in the instrumental guitar genre, one you don'thear much about unless you're a guitarist, or guitar fan. Like any field, though, when we're all sick of digital clones and stiff acting, someone will combine the best of the organic with the advances in technology to create a unique work of art, and push it to a higher level. THAT will be cool.

IMHO, most of the current celebs out there are pretty artificial anyway so I don't think it would be a big difference ;) The jump to CG is bit harder than you think because you still need real people to make the characters' movements look believable. Also, voices are a big selling point for movies. That was evident in Shrek, Monsters Inc, etc. "I wouldn't waste 2 cents to go to the theater and watch laser projectionss of Poserlike dolls." CG models for the movies are done in Maya. The doll-like quality greatly depends upon where the creators are developing nude Vicki-types or real people. For example, look at Final Fantasy where so many of the supporting characters were more realistic than the lead female. I think eventually the push for CG will be to avoid paying actors such an exorbitant amount of money. Some how it hasn't caught on in our society the innate unfairness that entertainers can make in the upward millions while some of us working on advance degrees will just expect to scrap by.

A few actors get paid big money because we (and advertisers) are willing to pay the money to see them and buy products related to them. The average actor doesn't make a living wage...that's why so many of them hold down two jobs. For every Julia Roberts, there are a thousand Bernie Marbleheads just scrapping by, and they are the ones who will get hurt if faux people take over.

There will always be celebrities. There are millions of autograph seekers just dying to get a close encounter with their heros like Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, and countless others. They certainly do have a plastic image complared to the average citizen, but there will always be a demand for the real thing. How do you get autographs or those rare photo ops from a collection of pixels? LOL Melanie

I'll buck the trend just a bit and say that I'm looking forward to seeing more digital people - so long as they've got real people behind them (ala Gollum). In some cases, I think they'll be able to use digital people for stunts that are just too dangerous for real actors. Wanna drop Johnny Depp off a 200' cliff and have him land amidst a herd of rampaging elephants? The programs that are coming will be able to do exactly that - and I'd bet that Industrial Light and Magic (my favorite corporate name, btw) can do it now.

Throwing a faux person off a cliff is not acting. When I talk about real acting, I'm talking about someone who brings intelligence and thought to a role, who doesn't have to speak a word and you know their heart is breaking, who can give a glance and tell an entire story with their eyes. I'm not talking about the usual chase and smash films that require no acting....I'm talking about someone who has learned their craft and practices it with heart and mind. A great actor can help me imagine whole words with the sound of their voice and the way their body speaks .... a faux person cannot do that because there is no brain behind the eyes, no intelligence in the body other than that of the technicians. Smash 'em ups of the Arnold school are just animations with humans filling in for the cartoon figures. You might as well watch the coyote fall off the cliff as he pursues the road runner. Those films, as entertaining as they may be (rather boring to me but I guess you've figured that out) have little or nothing to do with acting.

It may not be acting, but it IS a part of moviemaking, and it's something that I'd bet we see more of. And I'm also betting that, given enough time, we see better and better digital actors - to the point where eventually you won't be able to tell the difference from a real one. Right now, you're right - a digital actor is only as good as the software and hardware and technicians. It won't be that way forever!

I hope I'm not around when I can't tell the difference between a fake person and a real one. I think we're talking about different things here. Special effects are something different from acting. A real actor doesn't need special effects to communicate a scene. I saw a stage actor turn from Jekyl into Hyde before my eyes without one bit of makeup change...it was all in the voice and body and movement. That was more impressive that a digital transformation every would have been (to me). Special effects don't require real actors to be successful. As I grow older, I get less impressed with the gadgetry. Throw enough money at a production, and you can have a decent special effects movie. But there isn't enough money in the world to turn a bad actor into a good one. By the way, did everyone see that they used inflatable people for the crowd scenes in "Seabiscuit"? I would have thought they might use digital people but apparently they didn't work as well as the blown up balloon type. The special effects impress me less the the ingenuity of the people who come up with these kinds of solutions.

Heck, they used Q-Tips for people in the Pod Race scene in The Phantom Menace. My previous example was just special effects, that's true. But I'd bet we start seeing more special effects used on actors. For example, when the actor died before The Crow was finished - digital actors could have finished producing that movie. Or when George Lucas redid Star Wars - Jabba the Hutt was completely digital, and they moved Han Solo around in his footage to make it all work. And I'll bet that George Lucas and WETA (to name two) will not long from now be able to make digital people - maybe not the stars of the show but certain supporting characters - you won't be able to tell they're not real.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I would vote for a mix of the living and the digital, but I would hate to see live actors disappear. I just saw a production of "Midsummer's Night Dream" in which one character slid off the back of the stage (it was at an outdoor theater over a canyon). The very impressive part was that (a) the slide was an accident and yet the entire cast managed to continue along as if it was meant to happen and (b) the actor (unhurt, fortunately) managed to return to the stage without missing a beat. There will be no accidents (other than power failure) in an all digital world, nor will we see the amazing inventiveness of humans overcoming little obstacles like falling down. What makes digital people so boring is that they are too perfect. They don't have to adjust to situations. They just plod through without emotion to the next scene. Thanks but no thanks. There is a joy to the perseverance of the human spirit that no digi guy or gal will ever have. And I hope I can always tell who is real and who is not. One bleeds. The other bleeps.

Ah, but if that sort of thing takes place while shooting a movie, most of the time they do another take. Inventiveness is built into the script, or from the skill of the actor. If you've got a good voice actor, great software and a great technician, what's the difference? Are Belle or the Beast in Beauty and the Beast, or the different characters in Shrek any less affecting because they are pieces of software or animation? How 'bout Finding Nemo - impossible to use live actors 'cause the characters are fish - the actors and technicians there managed to ride the entire spectrum of emotions without one single real face. If they can make me care about the fate of a fish, then once they refine things a little more I'll bet they can make me care about people who aren't really there.

It strikes me that my real problem (okay, I have a lot of them) is that I simply won't care what happens to digital people. Real people take risks...they could be hurt (physically, emotionally). But who cares if Vicky in the temple and her clones slip on their swords? They don't feel anything and because they don't feel, I don't feel for them or about them. I need that emotional connection to enjoy a film or play. Star Wars was a cartoon...no feelings needed. But the stories I enjoy most are those that pull me into the story line because I identify or want to identify with the characters. And I have no interest in identfying with a cypher. That's the end of me. I've talked too much on this topic already. Apologies all. Guess it's one of my hobby horses. I seem to have a lot of those lately.

Sorry to hear you're out of this thread - it was getting very interesting. I must respectfully disagree about Star Wars - I very much cared about Han and Leia and Darth Vader - though the latest two movies have lessened my respect for Lucas just a bit. Part of my point is, after a bit more refining, you won't be able to tell the difference between a human being or Vicky 7 - there will be no visible difference. There will still likely be a human voice behind it, just like traditional animation.

But it IS neat anyway. And good grief. Actors aren't going to disappear. They've been around for thousands and thousands of years. Even if ALL movies went totally CG, they'd find another venue. Job descriptions and requirements may change, but there are always people to fill 'em. Technological change always brings about a bit of shifting around. Remember the doomsayers that complained of all the people who would lose their jobs due to computers?

Oh my! What a lot of strong opinions. I stirred up a bit of a storm here. Here's another thought. OK. My POV. Acting (good acting) is irreplaceable. No question about that. But there are a few actors I can think of that could be replaced without anyone batting an eyelid. Maybe some of the Julia Roberts/Meg Ryan romantic comedy brigade for a start (Don't bother flaming me for this - it's only an example - read on) Machine Claw said, 'I don't think I would sit through a CGI summer teen love story flick' When I read that comment, I suddenly remembered the William Gibson book (can't remember the name) about the japanese guy who marries a virtual video star. I don't know how I forgot that story, since it's right on topic here. It seems to me that the next generation could quite easily fall in love with virtual stars. I mean, what's so different, when you think about it. A kid falls in love with a poster of Spitney Briers. He can't touch her. He'll never meet her. She might as well be virtual for all the diff it would make to him. So if she WERE a CG star, I think a kid would feel pretty much the same. And before any old fogeys butt in, I'd just like to point out that a lot of kids today have a completely different POV on technology from us. We KNOW how this stuff works, and we may be used to it, but.... we still go "Wow!" when we see good CGI. That's because we've seen it grow and sweated through the changes. Kids don't. It's totally normal to them. They see Gollum and go, "Oh yeah, they did it with a computer. Big deal!" They expect digital imagery to be indistinguishable from reality. Turtle said, 'In Film, a great director, or and some peoples personalitys and Sex appell just come right at ya' Agreed. But, I just have 2 words to say re sex-appeal. Lara Croft. Now don't you even DARE tell me that adolescent kids aren't in love with her! mac Silver, LOL. Sorry about your band, but hey... tell me about it! I played in bands for years, then gave up in disgust. The music business is enough to make you puke. In fact, when Joni Mitchell recently caused a furore by describing it as a cesspit, I thought "Right on, Joni! 'Bout time somebody said it". But there is good music around. You just have to hunt for it. When I was a kid, we had 'bubblegum pop' and it was just as bad as anything around today. Anyway, now I just play for myself and don't give a damn about what people want.

Very fine thread this - I'd suggest a mental experiment, though : think "virtual" instead of "CG". CG is just a WAY among others to make virtual characters. All actors create a virtual persona, in cooperation with writer, director, customier, etc. And we have designer actors, designer bands, designer politicians, all carefully "animated", i.e. designed and stage-managed to project the impression that makes us like them and pay or vote for them. They are a kind of theatre performances in their own niches, supported by ever-growing armies of writers, coaches, and stylists to make them what we like them to be - and PR and spin pros to help us CONTINUE to believe they are "really" like that. One historical pope is reputed to have given his blessings with a muttered "Mundus vult decipi - decipiatur", which translates into "The world wants to be decieved - let it be decieved" ;o) Don't care what happens to virtual characters? Ever watched "Bambi"? Don't want stereotypes? Ever wonder why the plastic surgeons are laughing all the way to the bank? Can't mingle face-to-face with virtual celebs? Ever noticed what Honda's Asimo is doing for a living? Ever wondered how long it'll be before it's posh and cool to interact with a hologram of your favorite CG celeb? Poser, or more generally CG, actors will most likely be used to replace people whereever it's economical to do so, in order to produce the virtual character(s) that the paying public want. Film producers are already joking that virtual stunt men work 24 hours a day and don't complain when they are blown to pieces. Directors might soon joke that CG actors don't ask for horrific wages, and don't throw tantrums that mess up a week's shooting. Music producers will not even joke when they say that CG stars don't fall out of character, or do drugs, or whatever. In CG film, ILM points the way : they simply do what it takes to get the image in the box. If it takes CG, they'll use it, if they need a live actor, they'll use one. If they need 2D mattes, that's what they do. The "real" actor simply provides the figure, the mime and the audio, while the "CG supporting actor" provides the mime and the audio. What will remain for humans is choice, composition, creativity. You can program a computer to give us - statistically - what we like, but you need to study the consuming ape to see what s/he likes before you code it. And you need an idea-getter to come up with new things the consuming ape does not know s/he likes because s/he never saw it before the idea was born. Why so afraid, people? We buy it - literally ;o)

Excellent points, Thip. Especially about those actors who are difficult to deal with. The "Hollywood Brats," who throw tantrums and lock themselves in their dressing rooms, or demand $1 million per episode of whatever show they're on. I could easily see producers getting fed up and replacing them with a virtual actor. :) I don't know that people are afraid of it, though. My personal take is that I just don't believe it will completely replace live actors. There are a lot of people doing anything they can to get discovered. They want those few minutes of "fame and fortune." It's existed since probably the stone age, acting out the hunt for the rest of the clan. I can't see it disappearing because it was taken over by virtual actors. If anyone saw Debbie Allen's reality show Fame, recently, and saw how many people showed up for the auditions, thousands of them, it's pretty certain there will always be a market for live actors. Melanie

Melanie - I think you've just predicted where live "acting" will go : reality shows. The so-called spontaneous performances in these are already suggested (read : type-cast and coached) and edited to a remarkable degree. They just don't have professional training in what they do - yet. Film actors as we know them will become part of character creation teams. Well, actually they already ARE part of character creation teams - they will just have to accept that they provide less of the "input", such as mime and audio, and no longer the visuals. "Their" visual input is already only part of a team effort (involving stylist, lights/camera man and director etc.) There will still be a good market for the right skills - who wouldn't want Robin Williams to provide audio for one's own CG production? It will just eliminate the "star system" that pours $$$ into the egos/bank accounts of all the Give-me Moores of present Hollywood. If some of all those $$$ could be poured into actual filmmaking instead (especially into CG, with its potential doubling every sixteen months by Moore's Law), I think we'd have a lot more great new movies than we do now ;o)

Well done, Thip. You've managed to jump ahead of me and express exactly what I was trying to say. The 'virtual persona' of singers, actors and politicians is already with us. I believe it's a very small step to a future where the virtual persona exists independently, even if the human being never existed. And I can see Lara Croft holograms being sold to kids just like they now buy copies of Tomb Raider. I don't think it's anything to be afraid of. It'll just be another manifestation of cinema/TV/imagery, and in the end, as you say, human creativity will always be the driving force behind any endeavour. I'm a great believer in 'plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose' - 'the more things change, the more they stay the same'. In the poser forum, you see the same argument raging over digital art that took place 100 years ago between painters and photographers. So what's new? mac

Lets consider a few things. I admit I am not an actor, nor a great CG Artist. However, acting is much more than waving arms and frowning. It is delivery, inflection, timing, rhythm in voice and motion. Animation, both CG and standard (or my current favorite which mixes both!) have offered some great opportunities to actors who might otherwise no longer be able to act. Michael J Fox did great in Atlantis and Treasure Planet. Shrek was a fantastic movie. I have watched it hundreds of times, thanks to my daughter. THe movie was impressive because of the technology, it was great because Eddy Murphy, Mike Meyers and Cameron Diaz are great actors! Acting isn't going away. Technology WILL change acting as it has almost every other facet of our lives. You don't have to love it, but you should come to accept it. I personally enjoy having light after dark.

History is moving as we speak : DreamWorks stops hand-drawn, hand-animated moviemaking in favor of CGI : http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=4b0bb549fd1567d9c1acdd4dad7937a8&threadid=76963 (thread points at article, full article text is in second posting) It's not the turn of human actors yet, but this definitely the writing on the wall, IMHO.