• cobysev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 days ago

    I mean, Disney put out a casting call several years ago for little people to fill the dwarf roles for a live action Snow White. But Peter Dinklage balked at it, claiming that it was oppressive to cast little people just because they’re little and not giving them serious acting roles based on skill or merit.

    However, a lot of little people in Hollywood got mad at Peter Dinklage for ruining job opportunities for them, because they’re rarely cast for anything else and they had no problem taking the roles based solely on their height.

    But it was too late; Disney pulled the casting to avoid controversy and now we’re stuck with this CGI abomination to replace little people in this film.

    • HeyJoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      18 days ago

      That’s awful. A lot of people do a lot of degrading work in life… you do what you gotta do. Besides, I would imagine getting your foot in the door in a big budget movie would do tons for the rest of their careers and could have helped with getting other roles easier. Pretty sure that’s how it works for everyone in the industry. Did Peter not do anything like this?

    • lath@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      18 days ago

      Guess in reality, you first have to afford the bills before being able to afford virtue.

    • macniel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 days ago

      Peter Dinklage probably feared that other with his medical condition was able to find acting jobs and he would have to fight to find a gig then.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        18 days ago

        Time to retire that term. Being “politically correct” in the US clearly means being a bigoted Christian white nationalist, judging by the most recent election.

  • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    18 days ago

    We can thank Steve for the leaps and bounds that happened in the early 90’s with CGI - tl;dr he was a brilliant animator who snuck in under the radar at ILM and was given run of the animation department because he/his working partner literally invented many of the cutting edge animation techniques, from scratch.

    Dude has a tragic story (personality disorder & alcoholism) that led to him being uncredited and blacklisted, pretty well captured in a biopic, worth the hour-ish watch imo.

    • The Abyss, 1991 - Academy Award for Visual Effects
    • Terminator 2, 1991 - Liquid Metal for T-1000
    • Jurassic Park, 1993 - work featured throughout, with the highlight of the T-Rex’s movement and skeletal modeling
    • The Mask, 1994 - Nominated for Academy Award for Visual Effect
  • sploosh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    18 days ago

    Photorealism and stylized animation are not the same thing and are used in different contexts.

  • zerakith@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    18 days ago

    I read something about how the best outputs are done using a blend of make-up/models with CGI adding the layer of realism on top so pure CGI is worse but film studies pursue that because its cheaper and outsourcable compared with a heavy unionised make-up/prop workers.

  • Zexks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    Looks a thousand times better. No hair on the dino. The trees were real and the dino was just pasted in behind. It also barely moved and has no lines. It’s almost like you weren’t around to see what else was being put out in cgi at the time. This was during the live run of the show Reboot go watch that to get an idea of computing power at the time.