Did you watch the video? He also mentions recreating roles when actors have aged. Patrick Stewart and Arnold Schwarzenegger were used as examples, both of which are alive and kicking.
In hindsight, I think you're right. The thumbnail was clickbait, despite the video delving into other issues of using likenesses besides that of deceased actors.
I could accept that. It was said in the most recent Enterprise Mag that she and Mark were supposed to go onto Episode XI, and I do want to see her and her son reunite. So if its done in a not too in your face way, then I say do it. Finish Leia's story and give her a happy ending.
Yep, the only problem with Episode VIII to me will probably be Leia's performance. Not being hateful, I love Star Wars. It's just going to be very very sad watching the Leia scenes. Very sad.
Lego Ghost Rider yeah, at least Carrie had already filmed her parts for VIII before she died, so it will be a real performance. I shudder to think of the possibility of a digital performance in IX...Leia can't get a crappy death (like killed off in between movies or something), but I don't know how well a digital character would do during all of IX. She'll probably die early on in IX, so hopefully they do it in a meaningful way that aids the plot.
Yeah luckily the technology has gotten better and if her family is fine with it and if they can write a way for leia to be in the story and have it feel natural, then I won't mind. I feel why the cgi tarkin worked aside from it looking great was the fact that they had his tarkin do and say things that Peter Cushing would do and say if he was alive
I do think they had a plan to kill Leia before the end of this trilogy regardless.. but now that she died in real life.. it becomes a lot more sensitive to kill the character. I do think they will use CGI at some point and have her on Episode XIX, but they will keep her presence to a minimal. She is not such a vital character at this point.
LoneRangerGaming Reminds me of the old South Park episode where the boys scare the 6th graders with Kyles dead grandma, earlier Cartman says "we can shove a stuck up her ass and use her as a puppet rawr rawr I'm scary grandma" haha
Mr Sunday Movies well to be honest... it was kinda neccesary to generate Carrie Fisher in rouge one to make the entrance for a new hope... but in general to be honest I don't like it... I think they should try to make the movie without the actor who passed away
Mr Sunday Movies The film "the Congress" makes me think dead folks ok if the terms and paycheck for eirs are decided....but for living persons...like Robin Wright say...hummmmmm
Apparently, the (for want of a better phrase) the "super real reality" CGI had been available for mainstream release since: The Adventures Of Tin Tin (2011), but test audiences at the time were not comfortable with what they were seeing and felt creeped out by it. Considering post-production on animation we could be saying 2009. With no other mainstream reference point on CGI, but that film, Spielberg/film studios had to "dial it back" as an animation before it was released. Today, we have 4k, blu ray, VR units and filmic games. The improvement of the hyper real in digital TV, gaming and online arenas are certainly paving the way to appealing to a wider audience. The Hobbit trilogy, Avengers series are pushing the boundaries further. (I mention this, as back in 2010, there was not that widespread sophistication in detailed facial anime Tin Tin was too far ahead - now several releases of films/games/animes are on the same wavelength). That's not a rant, just an opinion, mixed with something I learned from delving into the history/makings of that Tin Tin (2011).
Let's not forget that Carrie Fisher was not the only actor they recreated via CG. The actor that plays Governor Tarkin, Peter Cushing, has been dead for over 2 decades before this movie was made. Other actors that are dead now were brought back to life in this movie as well but not in the form of CG. Their screentime was from footage filmed during the original's 1977 movie. Red Leader, anyone?
Tarkin is a major player in the story of the first Death Star. If you're gonna have a movie centered on the first DS, you have to have him. I don't know if I necessarily cared for the CGI, but the guy who played Tarkin in Rogue One nailed his speech patterns and mannerisms, I thought.
Scott Peterson I personally have somewhat mixed feelings about using digitally recreated actors like this well I do totally agree that doing it for Tarkin En Vogue one was a brilliant move given he was such a Cornerstone character in the original movie again the same for a Princess Leia right at the end does it not beg the question just how much can The Producers use another actors like this in this way with or without their consent. I do think that it can be a good thing in helping to keep the continuity and a movie series like this especially given how the original movies were done so long ago and often I hate how they will replace a particular actor it was someone else to do the same role I personally feel as often as not it ends up turning into an absolute bloody disaster
Scott Peterson The obvious thing to do is recast the character for the new movie, then re-film all the old scenes and digitally insert the new actor over the old one for the old movies, and re-release those movies with only the new actor, and try to erase the original version from history.
As for Episode 9. This is a dilemma that will bring never ending bickering. Is there any other way Leia could be in the movie ? Some would say, a lookalike actor could play her and others will complain about the actor looking nothing like her and will want CGI. Some would say if they can't get Carrie Fisher and if the CGI isn't good, then don't put her in at all. If Leia wasn't in that film, in that very pivotal storyline then others will complain why she isn't in that movie and could've used CGI or lookalike actor. Well R.I.P Carrie Fisher. What can they do now ? You were my only hope...
Honestly, I think they should just go with CGI. It was a little noticeable in Rogue One, but it didn't really detract from the experience at all, and I think ultimately Carrie Fisher would want her death to hurt the movie as little as possible.
Revan I would say they should do a funeral of leia in episode IX instead of replacing her for either a CGI or another look a like Actress even though Harrison Ford is alive and was killed off in VII and planning a fake funeral in VIII I would recommend that they should do a funeral of leia like she died of old age or something so then it wouldn't upset fans on both ends CGI and Lookalike actress instead cut though the middle and do a funeral of leia.
i think he means future actors. Obviously Carrie had to sign off on them showing a younger version of herself in rogue one, But honestly i think if the person is dead as long as there not using them for multiple movies or as the main character i think it should be fine, if they died during filming then Sure finish the scenes they didn't do, but don't put them in for a whole other movie just because you can :/
Have you ever seen the old video of Carrie Fisher joking that Lucas owned her likeness, so she had to send him a check every time she looked in a mirror? :) That contract may have just covered merchandising, but interesting how such clauses might be interpreted.
Alsteria leia was supposed to be a huge character in episodes 8 and 9. They finished filming for 8 but with 9 the only obvious answer if they don't want to completely scrap their plans and story they have is to use her as CG, which I'm fine with
Harrison Ford is the reason Han died in the first place. He would have no more of it. The conversation went something like this - ok - but this is the last damn time!
Carrie Fisher as Leia should end with episode 9, the last of the saga films. Variety and Reuters reported that Carrie Fisher was slated for a key role in that Episode. If they're gonna have General Leia again in Ep 9, at least honor Carrie Fisher's iconic role as Leia and not some other actor. At this point I'm really opting for CGI. No one else would make a believable replacement for General Leia.
I'm hoping to see a movie that involves a young Princess Leia that takes place a couple few years before A New Hope. She'd be about fifteen or sixteen. Maybe fighting alongside Daddy Organa and interacting with Obi Wan Kenobi. Of course if this happened, they'd recast Leia. It's a potentially powerful role that other women should have the opportunity to imbue. I like to imagine Carrie Fisher would have agreed with that idea.
Mr Peaches Latour I know I find cgi faces can work for brief scenes such as the cgi pilots Tarken and Leila from rogue one but if you had a full movie of cgi Leila it would not work.
+Realistic Narwhal Kathleen Kennedy, speculated that the franchise could only release standalone films in the future. So new saga films won't be making an appearance anytime soon. Besides they can't keep releasing a new trilogy now and then. It would greatly reduce the quality of the Saga franchise. A continuous saga will seem too dragged out and predictable, same old light vs dark story. It is best to look forward to the spin-off films that can cover many different aspects of star wars, perhaps including an Old Republic era.
It depends on the situation for me personally. If it's a small cameo from an old character (for example, Tarkin appearing in Rogue One) I think it's fine if the original actor is given credit. However replacing a major character or actor who will make their first appearance in a franchise or movie is wrong.
The first time I saw "Rogue One" my reaction was "I thought Peter Cushing was dead?! What an amazing look-alike they found!" But then at the end the Princess Leia was "that was CGI, and it looked weird." Then I read about how they actually replicated Tarkin and rewatched the movie and could see it did look a little off. I think this is something that REALLY varies from movie to movie. I think Tarkin should have been used more sparingly, but for the story they wanted to tell he needed to be there. (For all the "Tarkin's stuff could have been given to Vader" people: no, it couldn't have without retconning stuff.) Leia was unnecessary; they didn't have to show her face. CGI Dumbledore for 4 movies would have been TERRIBLE, both from what the technology can do but also because of how large his role was. CGI Carrie Fisher in Episode 9 (or Episode 8, if they need a reshoot) is fine, so long as they keep her role small and absolutely write her out of the franchise past that point. Likewise, if they decide to make a Tarkin prequel movie then for goodness sake just recast the role.
jliller what I found interesting is that they actually had a recast Tarkin for Revenge of The Sith yet didn't ask him to reprise the role like they did for Mon Mothma
My belief here is that it depends on the circumstances. For Tarkin and Leia in Rogue One it works. Tarkin was a big part of the death star in episode 4 as the movie focussed on it they needed to have him in it. The young leia while not needed was good to link the film back to episode 4 and give reason to the original films. The circumstamces where Brandon Lee and Paul Walker were re-created also works as they had already finished a large portion of production and the film would have to be either rewritten or reshot otherwise. Now I don't agree with carrying on a character digitally for sequels. For Carrie Fisher/ Leia I'll let it pass as we need an ending to her story in episode 8/9. But using a dead persons image for profit years after their death is shameful and just wrong
This is exactly the same point of view I was going to post as in yes CGI can be used to finish a film if they had already started production of it when they died though bringing them back to live with CGI 10's of years later to make money is just wrong and disrespectful.
He mentions in the video recreating roles digitally when the original actor has aged beyond the role, too. He even shows Patrick Stewart as an example, who also is not dead.
Rogue One was completed before she died, but SHE was not in it. Her image was used without any input from her at all (and possibly without compensation), which fits right in with the point being made.
anthony sizemore Carrie fisher approved of the her character being in rogue one and liked it. Either way however it wasn't evidently up to her because even though Carrie fisher plays the character she doesn't own the rights to leia, Lucasfilms/Disney does
I disagree unless the actor has allowed it in their will. Look at how tasteless the Lee family did it. Bruce Lee selling whiskey and Mars bars is beyond tasteless.
You know what a even bigger problem is? Having an actor that looks NOTHING like the original. It works for a redo, but not for a living character in a series that is still going. If Leia is alive in Episode 9 then casting a new actress would just fuck it all up. Rather have them CGI it in that case. However, they can kill off said character and add a new character that takes over the dead characters duties.
If they have a character that is just too important to replace with someone for a role they have played in the past then sure I don't see why not. If it's a brand new role then no that is disrespectful.
My opinion exactly. As long as the CGI is done perfectly. In the case of Carrie Fisher and maintaining continuity for instance. Though I doubt it with the costs of maintaining a CGI likeness throughout a movie series. We've seen it done in a short segment of Captain America - Civil War, during Tony Stark's "September" portion of the movie where they age regressed the actor to look like 20. I thought that was done rather well.
The right to be recreated should be multifaceted: 1.) For the future, actors should have a clause in their contracts on how this should be done or those rights/privileges given to their families. 2.) Families have the last say so, as long as they're abiding by the original actors decrees on recreation stipulations. 3.) The original actor could just sign all rights or rights with contingencies that meet a contracts agreements with the studios.
yeah, good luck with that.... 1.) no one does contracts with studios anymore... what decade are you living? 1960's? 2.) studios don't produce or make films... they distribute them 3.) no casting agent/producer or distributor would never make an offer like that nor would accept one... it would be the death of the talent's career... the actor and whatever foolish, amateur agent that would ask for this would be the one losing.... not the film industry., you clearly know nothing about law, film/tv/media industry, talent agencies, production.
They don't need to. They own the rights and image of the characters before even filming start. The actor plays the character given to him/her. But the character belongs to the studio.
Let's be honest Carrie Fisher would have wanted Leia to receive a proper send off or continuation in the final Star Wars film which is episode 9 seeing as she finished filming for episode 8 so that's done. I don't think they will use cgi versions of her in a Leia film as they can just recast like what they did with young Han Solo. Peter Cushing's likeness was used respectfully by Disney and it's not like they abused the image of grand Moff tarkin, essentially he does all the same things the character is known for. They could have marketed the fact they were using cgi for Peter Cushing to get some attention or made ass tons of products and toys but NO, tarkin was not seen in the trailer and we didn't know much about him for rogue one. The only time this should be a real ethical question is when they use a deceased actor's likeness to sell products and turn a profit on their image, it shouldn't be battered to shit if they wanted to honour the character and give them a proper send off.
I don't know. A living actor can decline a role they do not wish to be associated with. A recreated digital version can't do the same. I'll use the Bruce Lee example; if living, he'd likely never agree to endorse candy bars.
Also, they may be able to recreate the image, but it sort of makes the actual performance seem hollow, cause the actor isn't actually acting out the scene, which is kind of the point of actors in the first place. If it's a fairly small role then I don't mind, but take Marlon Brando for example- widely considered the best actor of all time. You wouldn't be able to create a Brando performance, with all the subtleties of his acting, without having the man there on set, alive and well aware of what he's doing. It just feels weird to me. I accepted Tarkin in Rogue One cause it was necessary for the story but I think it should be avoided if possible (unless it's literally for one small shot like Leia's appearance)
I think it depends on both the actor and the film. For instance, I'm against Carrie Fisher being recreated with CGI for Leia in Episode IX, because she passed away so recently and it wouldn't feel right to try and work around her absence in such a way. If they choose to recreate her that way, I suppose it wouldn't be horrible, but I think they should find ways to work around her absence through the story. In many cases it would be awesome to recreate actors with CGI, I felt the CGI characters in Rogue One were fantastic and barely noticeable as being computer generated. If the CGI is executed properly and effectively, then I'm all for it.
Exile Studios It's really sad that such an iconic actress like Carrie Fisher has passed away but doing what you suggested would be idiotic. Unless you're being sarcastic, hard to tell through text. But to scrap an entire trilogy of films, that hundreds of people have worked on, because one actor passed away is not the way to go. And I'm sure that Carrie herself wouldn't want that to happen either.
Even now you cannot use an actor's image without their permission. I do not see why this wouldn't carry over. Heirs inherit the rights to books and the like, why not the image? I think you would -- and should -- need permission from the estate's heirs to use the image for CGI.
Atomic: Then I see no problem. Fans don't "own" the image and if the person that does wishes to sell/rent it, that's their right and business. Fans get upset over nothing.
I think the studios own the rights/copyrights for the characters, hence they own the image and everything related to that character. In the case of Star Wars, they used actors that looked like them with a touch of CGI. In Rogue One it is not Peter Cushing but an actor that resembled him. Same with Princes Leia. Which in other words means they didn't use deceased people.
Sam I think she passes away in Episode 8.Why else would she reveal the Harrison Ford affair.Not a smart business move if you're still connected to the IIndustry.
Since Han the love of her life has died and she doesn't have anything much left to live for I can see her doing some sort of noble sacrifice at the end of episode XIII or if not have a Yoda style exit and naturally pass away with the force instead.
Talking about sleeping with a co worker while you still work at the job is not a good thing to do.If Leia dies.Carrie Fisher would be done with show business if she had not passed away.
it's kind of like, well why'd they ever need the actor if they could just portray them with CGI? clearly they didn't do anything a computer couldn't regenerate,
Josh Romer Because the CGI is tricky and probably incredibly expensive. How long do you think they spent just trying to make Carrie Fisher not look like a wax sculpture? And they couldn't even accomplish that much.
I think they should work clauses into their contracts that if they use their likenesses later on that their families get comensated for it then I'm fine with it.
CGI on the highest level to look real cost a shitton of money and time to produce. Now imagine if the main actor would be done in CGI throughout a whole movie. Such investment is not worth it for movie companies. CGI is good for cameos and that's it.
Obviously if they use Leia in Episode IX it will be a lot more limited role for her then if Carrie was still alive. I don't want them to redo the entire storyline of episode VIII just to write her out of episode 9 if you can just do a quick CGI write off.
The thing is they aren't digitally recreating an actor. They are digitally recreating a character to which they own full rights. In the same way the actor cannot go make a film using that character just because they share a face, the studio can create a film or animated movie or illustration or whatever they choose using that character even though they share a likeness to the actor. And people getting upset are mostly doing so because the actor did not have any input into the role, but the actor was not performing in the role in that film. When they recast Spider-man, Tobey McGuire didn't get a say in the performance because he wasn't the actor. In the same way Peter Cushing wasn't playing General Tarkin and so would have no input in that performance anyways.
When recreating an actor you are using his face, and voice, and there are right to his image. There are action figures and characters in games that do not have the same face as the actor because they do not have the right to the face. Of course, you could use another actor and add some modifications via computer, then I wont see a problem. As you can see there is an ambiguous region that should be defined in law. Who owns the right to a actor after dead? is it ethic? Anyway, I am against abusive copyrights so I totally agree to these recreations.
Tux Games He was talking about the actual Episode 8, not Rogue One which was obviously released before Carrie Fisher had a heart attack in the first place.
Andrei Joaca Gaming isn't one yet for the public. They are still doing all there magic with cgi crap, they always film the actors parts before they start the graphics
Zarzar the fact that you mention him by his character's name and not Peter Cushing makes me think you care more about the character than the actor. Plus Cushing liked Star Wars, so the director thought he would've wanted to do the movie
I think it's immoral to recreate deceased actors digitally, because when you... uhh *thinks of all the Michael Keaton Batman movies they could make. Fuck Batman Forever! CALL TIM BURTON!!! Tell them his BATMAN 3 is still on! De-age Keaton digitally, bring back Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face, digital Robin Williams as The Riddler, and Michelle Pfeiffer back as Catwoman!!! MAKE IT SO!
In one way, I agree that it's weird, but I think we're gonna get to a period in time where it's just normal for live actors to be acting alongside digital recreations of deceased stars, the same way we have grown used to actors on green screens and interacting with CG creatures and such.
It's completely disrespectful though. Why should you slap Robin Williams on a project just cause, years after he's dead and without his consent just because a family member agreed. That's bullshit. He's dead. Move on. Get someone else.
I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't think these actors would be against it. It's their legacy, it means that THEY are the embodiment of that character and they cannot be replaced. It would be insulting if they cast someone else. I think they should be credited as a sort of _in memoriam_.
To be fair, Carrie was alive when they did that. I thought it looked terrible, though. I think that most actors wouldn't have a problem with it. If they do, don't sign the contract. As long as it looks real, I don't have a problem with it--I mean, if the actor signed on.
I don't feel their is a clear cut answer to this. In the case of Carrie Fisher, since they are done with filming episode 8, I would not be mad if they killed Leia off screen and during the crawling text of episode 9, state something along the lines of "the Resistance is in shambles with the recent assassination of General Organa." That way they answer the question of why she's not in the film. During Rouge One, I felt that they did an excellent job with Tarkin. I felt that he was needed to drive the plot so that we knew why he was in charge of the Death Star during a New Hope. As far as deceased actors being brought back for unrelated projects, that all would all depend on the estate of said actor.
Only for movies they were working on when they died but not new movies it wouldn't be the same, their faces aren't the only reason why people watched them.
also he made a very small appearance in it, its not like the whole cast was dead and cgi or any of the main characters, i think that is pushing it to far, we need to let other new actors take the light and show what they can do with those roles, its the difference between Giving Princess leia a small story/death scene in ep 8 or 9 and just shoving her in the story in ep 9 like nothing happened. the latter would be super disrespectful, but i think its also a special case since i don't think we could handle a Different actor playing the general :(
Where does it end though? SW Ep:IX needs CGI Leia to end the character (since VIII is already finished filming) with fair compensation made to her estate/family. The only reason a deceased should be used in a flashback is if they can't somehow not feature a character. IOW, the film isn't about them but their part is needed to make it right. There again, fair compensation needs to be made.
well we don't know if she will be in episode 9 do we? they may cut a few scenes here and there and add another few in episode 8 or add only a couple of scenes in episode 9 enough to end her story without making her the main event, at this point in time i doubt a studio would use a deceased person for a whole movie, even if it only coincides with production costs, if you noticed there was only limited scenes of both tarkin and leia in rogue one, and a lot of tarkins scenes where him sort of hiding in the dark. easy explination they can't afford to have cgi in every scene, and when i say that i don't mean they don't have the money there but it would be wasted when there are plenty of other options that fans would be fine with.
besides disney is a smart company and will probably make a good choice on this,The people working on starwars know there fans need something that honours Carrie, keeps the story relevant, and doesn't take away from the movies by over bloating cgi. Also as good as the cgi was no movie at this time is ready for cgi faced characters running around for a whole film without falling into uncanny vally. otherwise it will just feel like watching a movie with a really well known actor detracting from the experience, (like how they didn't want to show Simon pegg)
Mortilum Not only them, but also the character, Mon Mothma. The original actress from Return of the Jedi died. The other actress played the younger version in Revenge of the Sith. In Rogue One, the actress in Revenge of the Sith reprised her role, but they used CGI to make her look like original actress from Return of the Jedi.
I'm pretty sure mon mothma was just the actress from rots, no cgi involved... Rotj Mon Mothma was way older and the facial features and hairstyle is different. Tarkin was pretty obvious in my opinion, Leia on the other hand I wasn't sure, but she was only on the screen for a few seconds anyways so I don't get why they cgi'd her in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, Tarkin looked great, very impressive CGI work. It was just obvious to me that he was cgi. Especially considering that Peter Cushing is long dead. But he also looked slightly more video gamish when compared with the rest of the people in the scenes especially when he talked. With Leia I just couldn't tell if it was an actress with a lot of makeup or a CGI recreation that was slightly off.
No need to worry about what's "right" or "wrong", it's been happening and it will continue to happen regardless. The point is, eventually, that's all there will be: simulated actors in simulated environments, wrapped in experiences that become more and more immersive until we end up... right where we are now, conscious projections in a simulated environment, unaware we're simulations in a simulation some countless number of levels deep.
Personally it just didn't work for me. If you're old enough to have watched the originals (back in the day), seeing a CGI of Carrie Fisher as she looked when younger just was plain WEIRD.. Plus, well, simply from a visual perspective, it was WAY too obvious those characters were CGI (Moff Tarkin). So, that ruined it for me. As impressive as the CGI was, they're really not there yet to seamlessly pull it off.
StarFury777 I haven't watched the original trilogy, but I know the story and I've seen the force awakens and rogue one, since my big brother invited me. I had NO IDEA Moff Targin were CG. I thought the "actor" looked familiar, but I wasn't aware that he was a character in the old trilogy as well :-) it was only Leia I knew was CG. When you are unaware and just following the story/dialogue its easy to miss the visual cues.
It's a fair point. Though, I'm pretty sure I'd notice this stuff even if I didn't have any clue about those characters. It may not help to have them in the same shot as a human character. That just helps show off the differences.
I know what you mean , I grew up on star wars , but the cgi really didn't bother me that much , Rogue One had to fit into the timeline and flow into A New Hope , they really didn't have much choice , Peter Cushing died over 22 years ago and Carrie was a 60 year old woman at the time of shooting . I'd rather they use cgi than let someone else play Leia . You could also argue that there wasn't any need to even make the movie but I'm really glad they did , and I liked it sooo much more than Ep I , II and III together
I still found tarkin more compelling a character than saugarero. (sorry I butchered the spelling). I physically cringed when he was doing the cliché save yourself speech
Fully agree! I liked Rogue One a lot, but this whole Saw Gerrera character and the plot around him were one of the weakest and cheesiest points in the movie. Regarding Tarkin, I think producers were too confident on that the character would look real on screen, which wasn't the case in the close up takes.
Hehe, It's his first and last names. Saw Gerrera. But I agree, it's because Cushing is a freaking amazing actor and brings so much cred to any of his roles. So even a CG version of him reminds us of his art.
Duncan McGee Thanks for the tip! Even though I watched all TCW just a few months ago, I didn't remember that Saw came from TCW. However, I still believe that the character was poorly written in Rogue One and his end was cheesy (to say the least).
Alex Martin-Schael yeah he's one of the resistance fighters that Obi-Wan, Rex, Anakin, and Ahsoka trained on Onderon. The episode is titled "A War On Two Fronts" though I forget what season.
7 років тому+4
dident mind tarkin in rogue one. but I think they should have used him less
One day we will have a Audio device that will disassemble every tone that is placed into it giving us the ability to make new Albums by deceased Artist. Now lets be serious here, I say New Album very loosely what I mean would be the ability to map ones vocal sound and then have a perfect vocal layout, for example let's say we put in Jimi Hendrixs' Hey Joe and the software maps it out creating a vocal map then we put in "Drain You by Nirvana" what would then happen would be a cover of Drain You but by Jimi Hendrix.
It's show business - they want to entertain us - therefore yes let them do this - I thought Tarkin looked amazing and I was shocked to see him - yes it made the film better and made more sense !
majeric There was a Guy in Hollywood Who was popular for his stunt driving. His name was Bill Hickman. He died in 1980. I thought it would be awesome if there was a movie with him in it. Possibly CGI? Who Knows.
It was something Christopher Nolan probably would've hated to do. After all, originally in DKR we would've got more Joker story but when Heath Ledger died, Nolan scrapped all of it out of respect. A full CGI recreation would've gone far past that moral code.
Lord_Hamez Interesting but I'm glad they didn't go for that and Heath Ledger's story of the Joker was finished when he passed away so I'm also glad they didn't continue the original plans.
Deric James they wouldn't do this, the joker character was a large part of what lead to his death. As good as his performance was, they never should've used a method actor to play one of the most notoriously insane villains in media history
Tyler Brooke-Thomas Yeah I know Heath Ledger was so good in the Dark Knight and I wanted to see more of him in the future but we all know he passed away before the film premiere in Theaters but I'm glad they didn't bring him back in Dark Knight Rises because out of respect for Heath Ledger but I'm kinda mixed on what you said never use a method actor for notoriously insane villains.
Deric James well I don't think you should use method actors, because even thought you get a great performance the fact is that the person is essentially turning them self into the character. In the case of Heath ledger, someone who already had issues, he should have never been allowed near a character such as the joker
Anthrax I disagree, whenever an actor working on a Hollywood project dies, the contracts they sign w/ the studios should be enough to determine their portraying characters respective fate, regardless of family intentions
Anthrax something I think Marvel and other big studios should include in their contracts is wether or not they have the right/permission to use say Chris Evans Captain America CGI on future movies and projects if something happens to him
Gerardo Rosa The contractual obligations of the estate would be regulated by local laws. You cannot force an estate to compete work, pretty much no matter what. The estate might be legally bound to financial compensation to be determined by a jury, but unless there was a specific clause in the contract that allowed for the use of likeness in that that way upon death, it should not be allowed. You could make a CGI actor do all sorts of things the regular actor may not have done. Maybe Carrie Fisher would have objected to the Wookie threesome in episode 9 in real life, but with CGI you could really tarnish her reputation. (OK, maybe that is an extreme example, but you get the idea).
Gerardo Rosa The contractual obligations of the estate would be regulated by local laws. You cannot force an estate to compete work, pretty much no matter what. The estate might be legally bound to financial compensation to be determined by a jury, but unless there was a specific clause in the contract that allowed for the use of likeness in that that way upon death, it should not be allowed. You could make a CGI actor do all sorts of things the regular actor may not have done. Maybe Carrie Fisher would have objected to the Wookie threesome in episode 9 in real life, but with CGI you could really tarnish her reputation. (OK, maybe that is an extreme example, but you get the idea).
Before I watched Furious 7 on rented library dvd, I was afraid they'd botch integrating Paul Walker into the movie. Luckily, they integrated him seemlessly that I don't know which parts were CGIs of him and which were real.
She was supposed to film scenes reuniting he with her brother and son in Ep 9. Do they rewrite that episode to not include those scenes? Can they kill her in Ep 8? What a horrible decision to make.
Honestly I feel like every actor should sign a contract that they are either ok or not with letting production use their face for future installments in movies, once their passing that way they don't have to get permission from their families because maybe they may have different opinions.
Here's an idea... Hire a different actress to play the older Leia in the remaining Star Wars stories. it's a movie, it's pretend, it's acting. They did with Dumbledore in HP series. Just make a good movie...
Donald Mousseau ... And Dumbledore lost his charm, though it prob wasn’t the actor’s fault for moronic things like having him Not wear his iconic glasses for eg. In the books pretty much all scenes with Dumbledore mentions them.
I think Tarkin's portayal in Rogue One was despicable... Being hyped up with the character looking out the window and have a slight reflection in where it looked so convincing.. and as soon as he turned around, total videogame character that just made me go why?
It's disgusting. Check out Ari Folman's The Congress starring Robin Wright prophetizing how a morally corrupted and greedy movie industry big wig (Danny Huston) co-erces an aging fading movie star (Robin Wright) into selling herself (scanning her into a computer) forever as a CG clone eternally stuck in her younger looks that can be exploited forever at will in whatever movies long after her passing provided she just renounces to acting until she dies and let the clone take the subsequent parts for her (which she wouldn't have no say nor choice) from now on. It's exactly what is happening right now and general audience seem to be oblivious and morally bankrupted because "OHMAGAD TEH SW Nostalgia Feels!" You can't replace fucking Marlon Brando playing a lead character mimicried by a CG puppet head of a dead actor's lkeness grafted onto a nobody. That's just so fucking wrong and against what acting stands for. It's a negation of what makes an actor an individual and his choices at any given moment and that can't be duplicated nor infered for us to be fooled by a greedy movie studio cashing on dead actors to franchise the shit out of corporate products.
maybe if the technology starts becoming more common, it'll begin to be part of contracts if they agree to have their image used years after they pass or in the future for other installments without having to rehire them
I heard Mr Sunday is going to Internet celebrity rehab during his "break. " but has the best damn podcast on the Internet! Who knew he needed to go to rehab the amazing he held it together as long as he did before succumbing to the crushing weight of the Internet celebrity lifestyle. LÜTCRATE !
A friend of mine told me that actors/actresses are putting clauses in their contracts now that prohibits studios from using their likeness in film should they die. I approve of this.
Maybe they should do an all-CGI young Harrison Ford for the Han Solo movie.
ajzeg01 The technology isn't advanced enough for that yet
Alden Ehrenreich would be pissed.
Or just not have a Han Solo movie at all........
sure it is. I personally didn't know that leia was CG in rouge one.
ajzeg01 the Han Solo movie is unneeded
You obviously forgot Rogue One was made before Carrie Fisher passed, and they just wanted young Leia to look real.
Did you watch the video? He also mentions recreating roles when actors have aged. Patrick Stewart and Arnold Schwarzenegger were used as examples, both of which are alive and kicking.
In hindsight, I think you're right. The thumbnail was clickbait, despite the video delving into other issues of using likenesses besides that of deceased actors.
The actor who played Grand Moff Tarkin was dead tho.
Her daughter looks more like her dad than her
And they had someone playing Peter Cushing playing Grand Moff Tarkin... :)
Disney *Rushes to get digital scans of Mark Hamil
rly? damn disney.
Yoav Mor
It's a joke but it's probably true
Joey Angotti
It can actually happen. It probably is happening. He could die.
He's actually done some mo-cap for a couple of video games, so there are 3D scans of him
Now all we need is for Mark Hamill to say every word in the dictionary with the Joker voice and we're all set.
It means we can get ghost Obi-won back possibly? i dunno
josh tidd THE WANS DIDNT DIE!
Why use CGI what you can just get Ewan McGregor to play the role?
@@ZVPieGuy becuse he looks like alec guinnes when he is a ghost
I totally support the CGI. It was amazing to see Leia again, even if it wasn't the real actor.
When i saw leia's face i was shocked and confused but then i realized it was CGI but i din't noticed it before. I support it too.
DurtySprite
It was pretty cool video game likeness especially when it smiled.
DurtySprite it was Carrie fisher. The movie was filmed in 2015
No it wasn't. It was a different actress with Carrie Fisher's likeness digitally imposed onto her face.
^^What he said. CGI was used to map old footage to fit the actress's face. Same with Tarkin.
Stan lee is the only acceptable one
Stan lee will not die, he is an immortal being
#LongLiveStanLee!!!
William Mcmeekin I'm pretty sure he's already filmed a bunch of cameo's and been scanned incase he dies. that man plans ahead.
Lego Ghost Rider Hi
If he dies, maybe they could put like a picture of him in the background in every movie
They could, but not all the time. I can understand if they use CGI for Leia in Episode IX if she's casted.
I could accept that. It was said in the most recent Enterprise Mag that she and Mark were supposed to go onto Episode XI, and I do want to see her and her son reunite. So if its done in a not too in your face way, then I say do it. Finish Leia's story and give her a happy ending.
Yep, the only problem with Episode VIII to me will probably be Leia's performance. Not being hateful, I love Star Wars. It's just going to be very very sad watching the Leia scenes. Very sad.
Lego Ghost Rider yeah, at least Carrie had already filmed her parts for VIII before she died, so it will be a real performance. I shudder to think of the possibility of a digital performance in IX...Leia can't get a crappy death (like killed off in between movies or something), but I don't know how well a digital character would do during all of IX. She'll probably die early on in IX, so hopefully they do it in a meaningful way that aids the plot.
I know she finished the scenes for Episode VIII, that's why I said it'll be sad watching them because she passed away.
Yeah luckily the technology has gotten better and if her family is fine with it and if they can write a way for leia to be in the story and have it feel natural, then I won't mind. I feel why the cgi tarkin worked aside from it looking great was the fact that they had his tarkin do and say things that Peter Cushing would do and say if he was alive
Should Actors Deceased Careers Be Recreated With CGI?
only Pauly Shore's.
not even CGI can save that man's career
Omg guys Carrie Fisher Died December 27th, 2016 and Rogue One the movie came out December 16th, 2016. Get that thorough your thick head stupid mind.
Hey I didn't make the video
I think you meant actors'
Just FYI, Carrie Fisher had finished shooting all her scenes for episode VIII, so no CGI will be used for the next movie, but probably for episode IX.
Thiago Vidal - good
Thiago Vidal Or cgi for a scene to explain her absence from the next ine
Thiago Vidal NO CGI! Disney will eventually have to kill Leia off, because Carrie Fisher is irreplaceable.
They still have a handful re-shoots scheduled for early 2017. Though they also have LOTS of footage from 7 that wasn't used.
I do think they had a plan to kill Leia before the end of this trilogy regardless.. but now that she died in real life.. it becomes a lot more sensitive to kill the character. I do think they will use CGI at some point and have her on Episode XIX, but they will keep her presence to a minimal. She is not such a vital character at this point.
They should use the dead actors but like a puppet. With the strings and everything
Brilliant!!!!!
LoneRangerGaming
People do love old school practical effects...
LoneRangerGaming Reminds me of the old South Park episode where the boys scare the 6th graders with Kyles dead grandma, earlier Cartman says "we can shove a stuck up her ass and use her as a puppet rawr rawr I'm scary grandma" haha
LoneRangerGaming hm, I think you've struck gold
69 likes... Ruined it.
and
NOPENOPENOPENOPE!
Interested to hear what people think about CGI performances. And happy new year, see you in a few weeks!
I liked them. Yeah it wasn't perfect but they did damn well I think in Rogue one.
Mr Sunday Movies well to be honest... it was kinda neccesary to generate Carrie Fisher in rouge one to make the entrance for a new hope... but in general to be honest I don't like it... I think they should try to make the movie without the actor who passed away
Mr Sunday Movies BTW you're doing a great job on UA-cam keep up the good work I enjoy almost Ever single video from you 👍
Mr Sunday Movies
The film "the Congress" makes me think dead folks ok if the terms and paycheck for eirs are decided....but for living persons...like Robin Wright say...hummmmmm
happy new year!
I don't have a problem with CGI. I have a problem with bad CGI.
And this looks like it could become pretty good soon
Apparently, the (for want of a better phrase) the "super real reality" CGI had been available for mainstream release since:
The Adventures Of Tin Tin (2011), but test audiences at the time were not comfortable with what they were seeing and felt creeped out by it. Considering post-production on animation we could be saying 2009.
With no other mainstream reference point on CGI, but that film, Spielberg/film studios had to "dial it back" as an animation before it was released. Today, we have 4k, blu ray, VR units and filmic games.
The improvement of the hyper real in digital TV, gaming and online arenas are certainly paving the way to appealing to a wider audience. The Hobbit trilogy, Avengers series are pushing the boundaries further.
(I mention this, as back in 2010, there was not that widespread sophistication in detailed facial anime Tin Tin was too far ahead - now several releases of films/games/animes are on the same wavelength).
That's not a rant, just an opinion, mixed with something I learned from delving into the history/makings of that Tin Tin (2011).
I don't mind it. By all means, bring on the zombie actors.
They already got past it with Genisys. It's just that they haven't done that well since.
***** are you saying you DIDN'T like it when 'rubber sex doll' Neo got pounced by 1,000 Agent Smiths??
.....the scene that could not be unseen..... :P
They didn't recreate her cause of her death. Rogue one was made before Carrie died.
Carrie's botoxed upper lip made it impossible to reuse her anyway.
Hence, "coincide" as the video states.
Let's not forget that Carrie Fisher was not the only actor they recreated via CG. The actor that plays Governor Tarkin, Peter Cushing, has been dead for over 2 decades before this movie was made. Other actors that are dead now were brought back to life in this movie as well but not in the form of CG. Their screentime was from footage filmed during the original's 1977 movie. Red Leader, anyone?
Can you make cgi macho man to wwe
+epsut Maybe
Tarkin is a major player in the story of the first Death Star. If you're gonna have a movie centered on the first DS, you have to have him.
I don't know if I necessarily cared for the CGI, but the guy who played Tarkin in Rogue One nailed his speech patterns and mannerisms, I thought.
Scott Peterson I personally have somewhat mixed feelings about using digitally recreated actors like this well I do totally agree that doing it for Tarkin En Vogue one was a brilliant move given he was such a Cornerstone character in the original movie again the same for a Princess Leia right at the end does it not beg the question just how much can The Producers use another actors like this in this way with or without their consent. I do think that it can be a good thing in helping to keep the continuity and a movie series like this especially given how the original movies were done so long ago and often I hate how they will replace a particular actor it was someone else to do the same role I personally feel as often as not it ends up turning into an absolute bloody disaster
+Scott Peterson I definitely agree with you.
Scott Peterson The obvious thing to do is recast the character for the new movie, then re-film all the old scenes and digitally insert the new actor over the old one for the old movies, and re-release those movies with only the new actor, and try to erase the original version from history.
As for Episode 9. This is a dilemma that will bring never ending bickering. Is there any other way Leia could be in the movie ?
Some would say, a lookalike actor could play her and others will complain about the actor looking nothing like her and will want CGI.
Some would say if they can't get Carrie Fisher and if the CGI isn't good, then don't put her in at all. If Leia wasn't in that film, in that very pivotal storyline then others will complain why she isn't in that movie and could've used CGI or lookalike actor.
Well R.I.P Carrie Fisher. What can they do now ? You were my only hope...
Revan unfortunately you can't please everyone.
Sparky Yep. Whatever the film will turn out to be, people just have to live with it lol.
I personally hope they go with CGI, seeing as how well it worked in rogue one.
Honestly, I think they should just go with CGI. It was a little noticeable in Rogue One, but it didn't really detract from the experience at all, and I think ultimately Carrie Fisher would want her death to hurt the movie as little as possible.
Revan I would say they should do a funeral of leia in episode IX instead of replacing her for either a CGI or another look a like Actress even though Harrison Ford is alive and was killed off in VII and planning a fake funeral in VIII I would recommend that they should do a funeral of leia like she died of old age or something so then it wouldn't upset fans on both ends CGI and Lookalike actress instead cut though the middle and do a funeral of leia.
I think actors should have to sign a contract stating whether they want their likeness to be used and in which way.
Okay, so we just need to bring them back to life to get them to sign the contract.
... wait...
i think he means future actors. Obviously Carrie had to sign off on them showing a younger version of herself in rogue one, But honestly i think if the person is dead as long as there not using them for multiple movies or as the main character i think it should be fine, if they died during filming then Sure finish the scenes they didn't do, but don't put them in for a whole other movie just because you can :/
Have you ever seen the old video of Carrie Fisher joking that Lucas owned her likeness, so she had to send him a check every time she looked in a mirror? :) That contract may have just covered merchandising, but interesting how such clauses might be interpreted.
ooohh nice point Dubyel !
Alsteria leia was supposed to be a huge character in episodes 8 and 9. They finished filming for 8 but with 9 the only obvious answer if they don't want to completely scrap their plans and story they have is to use her as CG, which I'm fine with
Help me, Mr. Sunday! You're my only goat!
Dasher Crow *THIS*^^
Lol. Bet JJ Abrahams is like "fuck, we killed the wrong character"
I'm sure Harrison ford would disagree.
Harrison Ford is the reason Han died in the first place. He would have no more of it. The conversation went something like this - ok - but this is the last damn time!
zinfer1 no shit. that was my point that harrison ford was happy han solo was killed off so he wouldn't have to play him again.
zinfer1 More like "I'll only go on if you kill me. What? You will?! Sign me the fuck up!"
(he's been wanting Han dead for years)
Carrie Fisher as Leia should end with episode 9, the last of the saga films. Variety and Reuters reported that Carrie Fisher was slated for a key role in that Episode. If they're gonna have General Leia again in Ep 9, at least honor Carrie Fisher's iconic role as Leia and not some other actor. At this point I'm really opting for CGI. No one else would make a believable replacement for General Leia.
Revan also they need to cgi her for one reason,I don't want her character to be killed off,disrespectful way.
I'm hoping to see a movie that involves a young Princess Leia that takes place a couple few years before A New Hope. She'd be about fifteen or sixteen. Maybe fighting alongside Daddy Organa and interacting with Obi Wan Kenobi. Of course if this happened, they'd recast Leia. It's a potentially powerful role that other women should have the opportunity to imbue. I like to imagine Carrie Fisher would have agreed with that idea.
Mr Peaches Latour I know I find cgi faces can work for brief scenes such as the cgi pilots Tarken and Leila from rogue one but if you had a full movie of cgi Leila it would not work.
Theres suposed to be an Episode 10 11 and 12 so this is not the last saga.
+Realistic Narwhal Kathleen Kennedy, speculated that the franchise could only release standalone films in the future. So new saga films won't be making an appearance anytime soon. Besides they can't keep releasing a new trilogy now and then. It would greatly reduce the quality of the Saga franchise. A continuous saga will seem too dragged out and predictable, same old light vs dark story. It is best to look forward to the spin-off films that can cover many different aspects of star wars, perhaps including an Old Republic era.
It depends on the situation for me personally. If it's a small cameo from an old character (for example, Tarkin appearing in Rogue One) I think it's fine if the original actor is given credit. However replacing a major character or actor who will make their first appearance in a franchise or movie is wrong.
The first time I saw "Rogue One" my reaction was "I thought Peter Cushing was dead?! What an amazing look-alike they found!" But then at the end the Princess Leia was "that was CGI, and it looked weird." Then I read about how they actually replicated Tarkin and rewatched the movie and could see it did look a little off.
I think this is something that REALLY varies from movie to movie. I think Tarkin should have been used more sparingly, but for the story they wanted to tell he needed to be there. (For all the "Tarkin's stuff could have been given to Vader" people: no, it couldn't have without retconning stuff.) Leia was unnecessary; they didn't have to show her face.
CGI Dumbledore for 4 movies would have been TERRIBLE, both from what the technology can do but also because of how large his role was.
CGI Carrie Fisher in Episode 9 (or Episode 8, if they need a reshoot) is fine, so long as they keep her role small and absolutely write her out of the franchise past that point. Likewise, if they decide to make a Tarkin prequel movie then for goodness sake just recast the role.
jliller what I found interesting is that they actually had a recast Tarkin for Revenge of The Sith yet didn't ask him to reprise the role like they did for Mon Mothma
That's because the Tarkin in RotS looked TERRIBLE. Worse than the Phantom Menace Yoda puppet.
I mean as far as being the stand in that they then change with cgi
My belief here is that it depends on the circumstances. For Tarkin and Leia in Rogue One it works. Tarkin was a big part of the death star in episode 4 as the movie focussed on it they needed to have him in it. The young leia while not needed was good to link the film back to episode 4 and give reason to the original films.
The circumstamces where Brandon Lee and Paul Walker were re-created also works as they had already finished a large portion of production and the film would have to be either rewritten or reshot otherwise.
Now I don't agree with carrying on a character digitally for sequels. For Carrie Fisher/ Leia I'll let it pass as we need an ending to her story in episode 8/9. But using a dead persons image for profit years after their death is shameful and just wrong
PhilDuggs Exactly what I was thinking. You really get the nail on the head!
This is exactly the same point of view I was going to post as in yes CGI can be used to finish a film if they had already started production of it when they died though bringing them back to live with CGI 10's of years later to make money is just wrong and disrespectful.
Okay, Rogue One was finished BEFORE she died.....
He mentions in the video recreating roles digitally when the original actor has aged beyond the role, too. He even shows Patrick Stewart as an example, who also is not dead.
Yeah, but the title says "deceased" so.. clickbait thumbnail.
Really? Tell more more.
In no way is it click bait. He talks about deceased actors then lead into others. Calm yourslef
Rogue One was completed before she died, but SHE was not in it. Her image was used without any input from her at all (and possibly without compensation), which fits right in with the point being made.
I would say it is up to surviving family members
anthony sizemore Carrie fisher approved of the her character being in rogue one and liked it. Either way however it wasn't evidently up to her because even though Carrie fisher plays the character she doesn't own the rights to leia, Lucasfilms/Disney does
I disagree unless the actor has allowed it in their will. Look at how tasteless the Lee family did it. Bruce Lee selling whiskey and Mars bars is beyond tasteless.
No, it should be up to the person.
I think characters should get recast if their actors die because dead actors stealing work from living actors could be a big problem!
You know what a even bigger problem is? Having an actor that looks NOTHING like the original. It works for a redo, but not for a living character in a series that is still going. If Leia is alive in Episode 9 then casting a new actress would just fuck it all up. Rather have them CGI it in that case. However, they can kill off said character and add a new character that takes over the dead characters duties.
they still use actors to apply the cgi to
Dan Bauer No, it couldn't.
Dan Bauer No, you still hire real actors and you just add the CGI to them.
No because the original can't be replace or else not many is going to like the movie which might either force them to make a reboot or a remake
If they have a character that is just too important to replace with someone for a role they have played in the past then sure I don't see why not.
If it's a brand new role then no that is disrespectful.
Yea I remember they did it for the Crow with Brandon Lee it's nothing new really.
My opinion exactly. As long as the CGI is done perfectly. In the case of Carrie Fisher and maintaining continuity for instance. Though I doubt it with the costs of maintaining a CGI likeness throughout a movie series.
We've seen it done in a short segment of Captain America - Civil War, during Tony Stark's "September" portion of the movie where they age regressed the actor to look like 20. I thought that was done rather well.
I totally agree.
And proper screen credit.
The right to be recreated should be multifaceted:
1.) For the future, actors should have a clause in their contracts on how this should be done or those rights/privileges given to their families.
2.) Families have the last say so, as long as they're abiding by the original actors decrees on recreation stipulations.
3.) The original actor could just sign all rights or rights with contingencies that meet a contracts agreements with the studios.
yeah, good luck with that....
1.) no one does contracts with studios anymore... what decade are you living? 1960's?
2.) studios don't produce or make films... they distribute them
3.) no casting agent/producer or distributor would never make an offer like that nor would accept one... it would be the death of the talent's career... the actor and whatever foolish, amateur agent that would ask for this would be the one losing.... not the film industry.,
you clearly know nothing about law, film/tv/media industry, talent agencies, production.
I absolutely agree
they had permission of Cushing's family
They don't need to. They own the rights and image of the characters before even filming start. The actor plays the character given to him/her. But the character belongs to the studio.
I just read the title my answer is NO if they come back as CGI it will not give new talent a chance to perform all actors will be overshadowed forever
Let's be honest Carrie Fisher would have wanted Leia to receive a proper send off or continuation in the final Star Wars film which is episode 9 seeing as she finished filming for episode 8 so that's done. I don't think they will use cgi versions of her in a Leia film as they can just recast like what they did with young Han Solo. Peter Cushing's likeness was used respectfully by Disney and it's not like they abused the image of grand Moff tarkin, essentially he does all the same things the character is known for. They could have marketed the fact they were using cgi for Peter Cushing to get some attention or made ass tons of products and toys but NO, tarkin was not seen in the trailer and we didn't know much about him for rogue one. The only time this should be a real ethical question is when they use a deceased actor's likeness to sell products and turn a profit on their image, it shouldn't be battered to shit if they wanted to honour the character and give them a proper send off.
I don't have a problem with it! I'd consider it a great honor!
I don't know. A living actor can decline a role they do not wish to be associated with. A recreated digital version can't do the same. I'll use the Bruce Lee example; if living, he'd likely never agree to endorse candy bars.
My grandad would likely never agreed that I sold the house, but I did. Its up to the family to decided I guess.
Also, they may be able to recreate the image, but it sort of makes the actual performance seem hollow, cause the actor isn't actually acting out the scene, which is kind of the point of actors in the first place. If it's a fairly small role then I don't mind, but take Marlon Brando for example- widely considered the best actor of all time. You wouldn't be able to create a Brando performance, with all the subtleties of his acting, without having the man there on set, alive and well aware of what he's doing. It just feels weird to me.
I accepted Tarkin in Rogue One cause it was necessary for the story but I think it should be avoided if possible (unless it's literally for one small shot like Leia's appearance)
***** how could you have a problem with it when you're dead? If you're alive, sign a form that you don't want your likeness to be created in CGI form
I think it depends on both the actor and the film. For instance, I'm against Carrie Fisher being recreated with CGI for Leia in Episode IX, because she passed away so recently and it wouldn't feel right to try and work around her absence in such a way. If they choose to recreate her that way, I suppose it wouldn't be horrible, but I think they should find ways to work around her absence through the story. In many cases it would be awesome to recreate actors with CGI, I felt the CGI characters in Rogue One were fantastic and barely noticeable as being computer generated. If the CGI is executed properly and effectively, then I'm all for it.
in my opinion it doesnt feel right to see her on screen in 8 after her death they should just scrap the sequel trilogy and let star wars die
Exile Studios
It's really sad that such an iconic actress like Carrie Fisher has passed away but doing what you suggested would be idiotic. Unless you're being sarcastic, hard to tell through text. But to scrap an entire trilogy of films, that hundreds of people have worked on, because one actor passed away is not the way to go. And I'm sure that Carrie herself wouldn't want that to happen either.
Elmin Legend scrap the franchise it should have died 30 years ago before a fat white man got greedy
+Exile Studios That would have been a disaster for Disney. They are going to make alot of money thanks to star wars.
goblinwrecks screw their money
5:05 I was not expecting the editor to use a clip from the behind the scenes video of Metal Gear Solid V.
wait that old imperial general from rogue one was CGI???? wow thats impressive looked so real
The actor, Peter Cushing, has been dead for over 20 years now.
Yeah, Tarkin was also in A New Hope
Really? I actually thought he looked like something out of Jim Carrey's A Christmas Carol lol
AstrosGamer so there's more than one of these films?
I'm with you, I had no idea he was CGI. It looked pretty awesome so I'm all for it.
Even now you cannot use an actor's image without their permission. I do not see why this wouldn't carry over. Heirs inherit the rights to books and the like, why not the image?
I think you would -- and should -- need permission from the estate's heirs to use the image for CGI.
Anthony Hargis Pretty sure that's the current system in place.
Atomic: Then I see no problem. Fans don't "own" the image and if the person that does wishes to sell/rent it, that's their right and business. Fans get upset over nothing.
I think the studios own the rights/copyrights for the characters, hence they own the image and everything related to that character. In the case of Star Wars, they used actors that looked like them with a touch of CGI. In Rogue One it is not Peter Cushing but an actor that resembled him. Same with Princes Leia. Which in other words means they didn't use deceased people.
Respectively, I hope the death of Carrie Fisher doesn't alter the script of Episode IX.
Sam Lee She finished that was ready to do the next one.
Sam I think she passes away in Episode 8.Why else would she reveal the Harrison Ford affair.Not a smart business move if you're still connected to the IIndustry.
Star Wars Underground What do you mean?
Since Han the love of her life has died and she doesn't have anything much left to live for I can see her doing some sort of noble sacrifice at the end of episode XIII or if not have a Yoda style exit and naturally pass away with the force instead.
Talking about sleeping with a co worker while you still work at the job is not a good thing to do.If Leia dies.Carrie Fisher would be done with show business if she had not passed away.
"Maybe princess Leia will go out heroically in episode 8"
Oof
it's kind of like, well why'd they ever need the actor if they could just portray them with CGI? clearly they didn't do anything a computer couldn't regenerate,
They are a lot cheaper tho
Josh Romer Because the CGI is tricky and probably incredibly expensive. How long do you think they spent just trying to make Carrie Fisher not look like a wax sculpture? And they couldn't even accomplish that much.
I think they should work clauses into their contracts that if they use their likenesses later on that their families get comensated for it then I'm fine with it.
CGI on the highest level to look real cost a shitton of money and time to produce. Now imagine if the main actor would be done in CGI throughout a whole movie. Such investment is not worth it for movie companies. CGI is good for cameos and that's it.
Obviously if they use Leia in Episode IX it will be a lot more limited role for her then if Carrie was still alive. I don't want them to redo the entire storyline of episode VIII just to write her out of episode 9 if you can just do a quick CGI write off.
The thing is they aren't digitally recreating an actor. They are digitally recreating a character to which they own full rights. In the same way the actor cannot go make a film using that character just because they share a face, the studio can create a film or animated movie or illustration or whatever they choose using that character even though they share a likeness to the actor. And people getting upset are mostly doing so because the actor did not have any input into the role, but the actor was not performing in the role in that film. When they recast Spider-man, Tobey McGuire didn't get a say in the performance because he wasn't the actor. In the same way Peter Cushing wasn't playing General Tarkin and so would have no input in that performance anyways.
When recreating an actor you are using his face, and voice, and there are right to his image. There are action figures and characters in games that do not have the same face as the actor because they do not have the right to the face. Of course, you could use another actor and add some modifications via computer, then I wont see a problem. As you can see there is an ambiguous region that should be defined in law. Who owns the right to a actor after dead? is it ethic?
Anyway, I am against abusive copyrights so I totally agree to these recreations.
The studios do have the rights to action figures and such that have the actor's face because they have full rights to that character, face and all.
Carrie fisher finished filming episode 8 before she passed.
Gravity Junky yeah
Episode 3.5*
Tux Games Nope, episode 8 has already been filmed, believe it or not.
Tux Games He was talking about the actual Episode 8, not Rogue One which was obviously released before Carrie Fisher had a heart attack in the first place.
Andrei Joaca Gaming isn't one yet for the public. They are still doing all there magic with cgi crap, they always film the actors parts before they start the graphics
cartie fisher wasn't dead when rogue one was released
TeddyBearGaming yeah he knows that it's just that the idea of dead actors being replaced with CGI actors sprung to his mind when she died
But Tarkin was
Zarzar the fact that you mention him by his character's name and not Peter Cushing makes me think you care more about the character than the actor. Plus Cushing liked Star Wars, so the director thought he would've wanted to do the movie
Zarzar : U Mean Peter Cushing? who passed on in the late 80's?
'94 According to IMDB. Not that it changes anything relevant here, just thought I'd mention it.
I think it's immoral to recreate deceased actors digitally, because when you... uhh
*thinks of all the Michael Keaton Batman movies they could make.
Fuck Batman Forever! CALL TIM BURTON!!! Tell them his BATMAN 3 is still on! De-age Keaton digitally, bring back Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face, digital Robin Williams as The Riddler, and Michelle Pfeiffer back as Catwoman!!! MAKE IT SO!
In one way, I agree that it's weird, but I think we're gonna get to a period in time where it's just normal for live actors to be acting alongside digital recreations of deceased stars, the same way we have grown used to actors on green screens and interacting with CG creatures and such.
It's completely disrespectful though. Why should you slap Robin Williams on a project just cause, years after he's dead and without his consent just because a family member agreed. That's bullshit. He's dead. Move on. Get someone else.
'member Robin Williams? Awww 'member Catwoman?
Barbara Gordon lol brilliant.
I 'member!
If the cgi workers have the permission of the before dead actor than it is okay.
That's just my opinion.
I definitely wouldn't want that to happen to me.
Hey ami! You watch mr. Sunday movies?
I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't think these actors would be against it. It's their legacy, it means that THEY are the embodiment of that character and they cannot be replaced. It would be insulting if they cast someone else. I think they should be credited as a sort of _in memoriam_.
To be fair, Carrie was alive when they did that. I thought it looked terrible, though. I think that most actors wouldn't have a problem with it. If they do, don't sign the contract. As long as it looks real, I don't have a problem with it--I mean, if the actor signed on.
Aynge Mackay well said
Aynge Mackay Did you watch the video. He talked about episode 9 not Rogue One
***** I've seen animation and video games where I thought it was real people or animals.
I think it should be up to the actors while they're alive, not their family
Im 10000% sure it will be a BIG part of contracts in the future.
I believe this kind of cgi is okay to use (and amazing) in situations like this, if it's done with 2 things:
1. Permission
2. Respect
Couldn't agree more
RorySeizeTheDay obviously the directors of Star Wars respect Carrie fisher. Most of the people working on this film are life long fans
Neither of those things are legally required though, of course.
don't take the piss with it, only do it to honour people
Like fake boobs, I don't mind if they're fake as long as they don't lie about it. :D
and as long as they are on a woman LOL
^this
only for small roles, don't make them the main character
I think it's perfectly fine for an actor's likeness to be used if the family consents, and the recreation is used in an honorable way
I don't feel their is a clear cut answer to this. In the case of Carrie Fisher, since they are done with filming episode 8, I would not be mad if they killed Leia off screen and during the crawling text of episode 9, state something along the lines of "the Resistance is in shambles with the recent assassination of General Organa." That way they answer the question of why she's not in the film.
During Rouge One, I felt that they did an excellent job with Tarkin. I felt that he was needed to drive the plot so that we knew why he was in charge of the Death Star during a New Hope.
As far as deceased actors being brought back for unrelated projects, that all would all depend on the estate of said actor.
Only if the family approves it, then it's ok
I think that facial scans are at least 10 years away from being perfect
And don't forget Shemp from the last Three Stooges shorts with his face always obscured which is the origin of the term, Fake Shemp.
Only for movies they were working on when they died but not new movies it wouldn't be the same, their faces aren't the only reason why people watched them.
With the exception of Grand Moff Tarkin bc they had to since Rogue One was a flashback film.
also he made a very small appearance in it, its not like the whole cast was dead and cgi or any of the main characters, i think that is pushing it to far, we need to let other new actors take the light and show what they can do with those roles, its the difference between Giving Princess leia a small story/death scene in ep 8 or 9 and just shoving her in the story in ep 9 like nothing happened. the latter would be super disrespectful, but i think its also a special case since i don't think we could handle a Different actor playing the general :(
Where does it end though?
SW Ep:IX needs CGI Leia to end the character (since VIII is already finished filming) with fair compensation made to her estate/family.
The only reason a deceased should be used in a flashback is if they can't somehow not feature a character. IOW, the film isn't about them but their part is needed to make it right. There again, fair compensation needs to be made.
well we don't know if she will be in episode 9 do we? they may cut a few scenes here and there and add another few in episode 8 or add only a couple of scenes in episode 9 enough to end her story without making her the main event, at this point in time i doubt a studio would use a deceased person for a whole movie, even if it only coincides with production costs, if you noticed there was only limited scenes of both tarkin and leia in rogue one, and a lot of tarkins scenes where him sort of hiding in the dark. easy explination they can't afford to have cgi in every scene, and when i say that i don't mean they don't have the money there but it would be wasted when there are plenty of other options that fans would be fine with.
besides disney is a smart company and will probably make a good choice on this,The people working on starwars know there fans need something that honours Carrie, keeps the story relevant, and doesn't take away from the movies by over bloating cgi. Also as good as the cgi was no movie at this time is ready for cgi faced characters running around for a whole film without falling into uncanny vally. otherwise it will just feel like watching a movie with a really well known actor detracting from the experience, (like how they didn't want to show Simon pegg)
Only in snippets. If they use CGI for the entire film, it's just stupid.
I had no idea Leia and Tarkin were CGI when I watched Rogue One, I found out about it afterwards.
Mortilum Not only them, but also the character, Mon Mothma. The original actress from Return of the Jedi died. The other actress played the younger version in Revenge of the Sith. In Rogue One, the actress in Revenge of the Sith reprised her role, but they used CGI to make her look like original actress from Return of the Jedi.
I'm pretty sure mon mothma was just the actress from rots, no cgi involved... Rotj Mon Mothma was way older and the facial features and hairstyle is different.
Tarkin was pretty obvious in my opinion, Leia on the other hand I wasn't sure, but she was only on the screen for a few seconds anyways so I don't get why they cgi'd her in the first place.
In my opinion it was the other way around. Tarkin was great and Leia was off
CSI Gunner Leia was only off to me because I knew for certain it wasn't actually her.
I'm surprised how well Tarkin was pulled off, though.
Don't get me wrong, Tarkin looked great, very impressive CGI work. It was just obvious to me that he was cgi. Especially considering that Peter Cushing is long dead. But he also looked slightly more video gamish when compared with the rest of the people in the scenes especially when he talked.
With Leia I just couldn't tell if it was an actress with a lot of makeup or a CGI recreation that was slightly off.
I love the way you scrape away the BS and expose the stories beneath. Keep 'em coming and a massive thanks. :-)
Meh I don't mind a few minutes of screen time but entire movies with dead CG characters is pushing it
I liked Tarkington and I wouldn't care if they did leia with cgi
I think that the contract nowadays should include a consent form for using CGI in case of an accident.
No need to worry about what's "right" or "wrong", it's been happening and it will continue to happen regardless. The point is, eventually, that's all there will be: simulated actors in simulated environments, wrapped in experiences that become more and more immersive until we end up... right where we are now, conscious projections in a simulated environment, unaware we're simulations in a simulation some countless number of levels deep.
*RIP Carrie Fisher, Our Princess*
Personally it just didn't work for me.
If you're old enough to have watched the originals (back in the day), seeing a CGI of Carrie Fisher as she looked when younger just was plain WEIRD..
Plus, well, simply from a visual perspective, it was WAY too obvious those characters were CGI (Moff Tarkin).
So, that ruined it for me. As impressive as the CGI was, they're really not there yet to seamlessly pull it off.
No, not seamless. But Tarkin was pretty damn good. Leia though was terrible.
Some people notice things more than others. I suppose it is a curse of mine to notice things so precisely?
StarFury777 I haven't watched the original trilogy, but I know the story and I've seen the force awakens and rogue one, since my big brother invited me. I had NO IDEA Moff Targin were CG. I thought the "actor" looked familiar, but I wasn't aware that he was a character in the old trilogy as well :-) it was only Leia I knew was CG. When you are unaware and just following the story/dialogue its easy to miss the visual cues.
It's a fair point. Though, I'm pretty sure I'd notice this stuff even if I didn't have any clue about those characters. It may not help to have them in the same shot as a human character. That just helps show off the differences.
I know what you mean , I grew up on star wars , but the cgi really didn't bother me that much , Rogue One had to fit into the timeline and flow into A New Hope , they really didn't have much choice , Peter Cushing died over 22 years ago and Carrie was a 60 year old woman at the time of shooting . I'd rather they use cgi than let someone else play Leia . You could also argue that there wasn't any need to even make the movie but I'm really glad they did , and I liked it sooo much more than Ep I , II and III together
She was alive when they recreated her younger self with CGI.
Red Beard But age won't be alive for Episode 9 or beyond, so what then?
Atomic Robo Tesla well then you can cry like the pathetic snowflakes infecting this country.
the other dude they used CGI for was dead though
peter cushing was his name
gokuson kun yeah but he never owned the rights to the Tarkin character, so it's not his choice, dead or alive
Enjoy your vacation mr Sunday movies! Been a great year of content
I still found tarkin more compelling a character than saugarero. (sorry I butchered the spelling). I physically cringed when he was doing the cliché save yourself speech
Fully agree! I liked Rogue One a lot, but this whole Saw Gerrera character and the plot around him were one of the weakest and cheesiest points in the movie. Regarding Tarkin, I think producers were too confident on that the character would look real on screen, which wasn't the case in the close up takes.
Hehe, It's his first and last names. Saw Gerrera. But I agree, it's because Cushing is a freaking amazing actor and brings so much cred to any of his roles. So even a CG version of him reminds us of his art.
Alex Martin-Schael Saw goes back to TCW just sayin
Duncan McGee Thanks for the tip! Even though I watched all TCW just a few months ago, I didn't remember that Saw came from TCW. However, I still believe that the character was poorly written in Rogue One and his end was cheesy (to say the least).
Alex Martin-Schael yeah he's one of the resistance fighters that Obi-Wan, Rex, Anakin, and Ahsoka trained on Onderon. The episode is titled "A War On Two Fronts" though I forget what season.
dident mind tarkin in rogue one. but I think they should have used him less
I mean this will be an issue for a while but I feel like it will get solved as actors write this into their will or not
And assuming their families following their wishes. But I agree.
One day we will have a Audio device that will disassemble every tone that is placed into it giving us the ability to make new Albums by deceased Artist. Now lets be serious here, I say New Album very loosely what I mean would be the ability to map ones vocal sound and then have a perfect vocal layout, for example let's say we put in Jimi Hendrixs' Hey Joe and the software maps it out creating a vocal map then we put in "Drain You by Nirvana" what would then happen would be a cover of Drain You but by Jimi Hendrix.
It's show business - they want to entertain us - therefore yes let them do this - I thought Tarkin looked amazing and I was shocked to see him - yes it made the film better and made more sense !
The actor is paid to apply their likeness to a character.
majeric There was a Guy in Hollywood Who was popular for his stunt driving. His name was Bill Hickman. He died in 1980. I thought it would be awesome if there was a movie with him in it. Possibly CGI? Who Knows.
My bet since they killed of Han they'll kill leah in episode 8 and then Luke in nine
i think it's OK to use a CGI character in a film as long as they use it well like with grand moff tarkinn so it's not the bad.
I'm surprised they didn't go for a CGI Heath Ledger in Dark Knight Rises.
It was something Christopher Nolan probably would've hated to do. After all, originally in DKR we would've got more Joker story but when Heath Ledger died, Nolan scrapped all of it out of respect. A full CGI recreation would've gone far past that moral code.
Lord_Hamez Interesting but I'm glad they didn't go for that and Heath Ledger's story of the Joker was finished when he passed away so I'm also glad they didn't continue the original plans.
Deric James they wouldn't do this, the joker character was a large part of what lead to his death. As good as his performance was, they never should've used a method actor to play one of the most notoriously insane villains in media history
Tyler Brooke-Thomas Yeah I know Heath Ledger was so good in the Dark Knight and I wanted to see more of him in the future but we all know he passed away before the film premiere in Theaters but I'm glad they didn't bring him back in Dark Knight Rises because out of respect for Heath Ledger but I'm kinda mixed on what you said never use a method actor for notoriously insane villains.
Deric James well I don't think you should use method actors, because even thought you get a great performance the fact is that the person is essentially turning them self into the character. In the case of Heath ledger, someone who already had issues, he should have never been allowed near a character such as the joker
i just realized carrie fisher voiced angela from family guy
did she??
Aaron G yes
GhostJedi and she did two episodes before her passing, along with completing her scenes in Star Wars 8.
Ally Cuddles yes! R.I.P.
R.I.P. Angela...
actors that aren't dead yet they should make it legally clear whether they want to be recreated with cgi or not.
Anna Bender well legally they don't have a say but Carrie fisher approved of the CG leia for rogue one either way
They could use CGI to bring back Harold Ramis for a real Ghostbusters 3.
It should be up to the family
Yes, and Peter Cushing's family allowed Disney to CGI him into the movie.
Anthrax I disagree, whenever an actor working on a Hollywood project dies, the contracts they sign w/ the studios should be enough to determine their portraying characters respective fate, regardless of family intentions
Anthrax something I think Marvel and other big studios should include in their contracts is wether or not they have the right/permission to use say Chris Evans Captain America CGI on future movies and projects if something happens to him
Gerardo Rosa The contractual obligations of the estate would be regulated by local laws. You cannot force an estate to compete work, pretty much no matter what. The estate might be legally bound to financial compensation to be determined by a jury, but unless there was a specific clause in the contract that allowed for the use of likeness in that that way upon death, it should not be allowed.
You could make a CGI actor do all sorts of things the regular actor may not have done. Maybe Carrie Fisher would have objected to the Wookie threesome in episode 9 in real life, but with CGI you could really tarnish her reputation. (OK, maybe that is an extreme example, but you get the idea).
Gerardo Rosa The contractual obligations of the estate would be regulated by local laws. You cannot force an estate to compete work, pretty much no matter what. The estate might be legally bound to financial compensation to be determined by a jury, but unless there was a specific clause in the contract that allowed for the use of likeness in that that way upon death, it should not be allowed.
You could make a CGI actor do all sorts of things the regular actor may not have done. Maybe Carrie Fisher would have objected to
the Wookie threesome in episode 9 in real life, but with CGI you could really tarnish her reputation. (OK, maybe that is an extreme example, but you get the idea).
Hopefully I win the lootcrate by commenting
same
only if movie is not finnished,but otherwise not
Before I watched Furious 7 on rented library dvd, I was afraid they'd botch integrating Paul Walker into the movie.
Luckily, they integrated him seemlessly that I don't know which parts were CGIs of him and which were real.
Go ahead; I don't care where people put my face.
Pablo Griswold ull never be in a movie
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
too bad no one wants your face
Patrick Quinn Too real, man T_T
NeonDeathAdder Precisely. Raise your dongers!
*All* actors should be replaced with CGI. Saves us overpaid idiots and their egos.
i disargee with your idea
lol
I disagree. Not that it would work anyhow, since actors would still be paid for their likeness and you would still need voice actors in the case.
Cush well cgi characters in modern films still require an actor to do the movement, like tarkin an leia in rogue on
Actually, in Star Wars 9 Carrie Fisher completed all of her scenes before she passed away. So it's all cool.
what Darren said , she finished her scenes for Ep 8 , that comes out dec 2017 . Ep 9 doesn't come out until 2019
Simply just don't have her return back for episode 9, it's the least they can do!
She was supposed to film scenes reuniting he with her brother and son in Ep 9. Do they rewrite that episode to not include those scenes? Can they kill her in Ep 8? What a horrible decision to make.
Honestly I feel like every actor should sign a contract that they are either ok or not with letting production use their face for future installments in movies, once their passing that way they don't have to get permission from their families because maybe they may have different opinions.
Rogue one was good
hellogreedo uploaded this video a week ago
wow he stole this guys work how could greedo do that geez
this exact video? Wow! That's amazing!
+Péter Stangl I know you're being sarcastic but it is almost word for word.
Here's an idea... Hire a different actress to play the older Leia in the remaining Star Wars stories. it's a movie, it's pretend, it's acting. They did with Dumbledore in HP series. Just make a good movie...
Donald Mousseau ... And Dumbledore lost his charm, though it prob wasn’t the actor’s fault for moronic things like having him Not wear his iconic glasses for eg. In the books pretty much all scenes with Dumbledore mentions them.
I think Tarkin's portayal in Rogue One was despicable... Being hyped up with the character looking out the window and have a slight reflection in where it looked so convincing.. and as soon as he turned around, total videogame character that just made me go why?
nonononononono they should not
I think it depends on the families and actors wishes.
I think it's disrespectful to just replace them.
It's disgusting. Check out Ari Folman's The Congress starring Robin Wright prophetizing how a morally corrupted and greedy movie industry big wig (Danny Huston) co-erces an aging fading movie star (Robin Wright) into selling herself (scanning her into a computer) forever as a CG clone eternally stuck in her younger looks that can be exploited forever at will in whatever movies long after her passing provided she just renounces to acting until she dies and let the clone take the subsequent parts for her (which she wouldn't have no say nor choice) from now on. It's exactly what is happening right now and general audience seem to be oblivious and morally bankrupted because "OHMAGAD TEH SW Nostalgia Feels!" You can't replace fucking Marlon Brando playing a lead character mimicried by a CG puppet head of a dead actor's lkeness grafted onto a nobody. That's just so fucking wrong and against what acting stands for. It's a negation of what makes an actor an individual and his choices at any given moment and that can't be duplicated nor infered for us to be fooled by a greedy movie studio cashing on dead actors to franchise the shit out of corporate products.
Nobody gives a fuck. For all I care they can CGI a vagina and write "Carrie fisher" on it.
deadstar44 Common man, you can do better than that.. That's some tumblr level of trolling.
phantomas didn't have trouble putting fake heads on...
maybe if the technology starts becoming more common, it'll begin to be part of contracts if they agree to have their image used years after they pass or in the future for other installments without having to rehire them
I heard Mr Sunday is going to Internet celebrity rehab during his "break. " but has the best damn podcast on the Internet! Who knew he needed to go to rehab the amazing he held it together as long as he did before succumbing to the crushing weight of the Internet celebrity lifestyle.
LÜTCRATE !
A friend of mine told me that actors/actresses are putting clauses in their contracts now that prohibits studios from using their likeness in film should they die. I approve of this.
You have added nothing to the discussion.
Nothing.
rdecredico the point of the video is to pose the question and leave it to you to make a decision.
seems like a first world problem
Enjoy the break! You earned it!