I found this article, and I thought it was pretty thought provoking...whether it comes to pass as he prognosticates or not is anybody's guess, but it does give you pause to think:http://tinyurl.com/35472n

Computers, software and 3D are definitely progressing at a super-fast speed. But this won't make the industry "dead".

You'll still need people to work on the computers - computers cannot think... atleast not yet. A computer cannot think that this world is fake... and humans are being used a "batteries" (its the opposite... we're using computers!!). Neither can you make them think about the adventures of a little boy genius. This "emotional thinking" in computers is light years ahead.

And because of this, movies cannot be produced by "dead" beings. Currently, you need modellers to create "living beings" and their "environment" on computers. And to make those "living beings" move, you need animators or use motion capture. Either way, "real life" is needed.

For the voice part, that could be done... but nothing would be as convincing as a human voice (atleast with today's technology).

This could be done only if you hardwire the human brain on a motherboard! But even then, something "really" living would be involved!!!

IMO, the writer of this article is taking one genre of movies and applying a theory based solely on that genre to all the other genres of film. Sure, I could see a time in the future where computer animated films make up a large portion of what is released, but there will always be a need for real actors and actresses. CGI is great for movies like Lord of the Rings, that Narnia flick, Shrek, etc. But dramas like Million Dollar Baby, The Departed, and so on wouldn't benefit at all from being entirely CGI. It just wouldn't be the same.

Not to mention the Academy Awards would be altered completely...

Agreed...but it's still an interesting thought.

This has been kicked around for ages - hollywood will never die. People admire people, not pixels.

There are several problems with his theory that make it implausable for the near future. I also couldn't help but note the date: 2001.

Perhaps the biggest problem with his theory is the present state of technology. Even when watching the credits and special features section of the dvd for Shrek 2, they showed that there was a need for a THREE THOUSAND processor server farm just to be able to render the images for the movie! It takes an incredible amount of time and processor power just to render one second of on-screen time.

This thread reminds me of a statement made in the latest GENII by Richard Kaufmann in which he declared that print may soon die. I don't have the magazine in front of me, but that appeared to be the basics of what he was trying to get at. At any rate, a similar statement was made in Ghostbusters when one of the team members, in response to the secretary's statement that she liked to read, said that "print is dead". It's been 23 years and I don't see print dying as a medium any time soon.

Excellent observation!