I agree. They are awesome. They did an even better job than the CGI effects they implemented for the character of Renesmee in Breaking Dawn/Twilight, which were considered cutting edge as well.
Maybe you need your eyes testing then. I mean, it's certainly impressive but it still doesn't look real... his wrinkles and folds under his eyes for instance look painted on and his skin overall seems to have the elasticity of a teenager.
There were some people (as annotated in the video) who watched this and weren't aware it was CGI. I think we're unconsciously looking for differences because we know they're deceased actors. The job they did with the technology and lighting was, honestly, stunning.
I don't see how creating CGI versions of characters because the actor/actress has died or is too old is an insult to the person. I doubt Peter Cushing is turning in his grave.
It's an insult if they're using that person's likeness to do things they wouldn't have participated in if they were alive. Like using dead actors to sell products. It's an insult to their legacy, not them personally, that's why they need permission from the actor's estate before they're allowed to do this.
I'm not talking about Tarkin specifically, as I'm sure he would have participated if he could have, but you said you didn't see how it could be an insult, and I was giving you an example. If, say, they'd had CG Peter Cushing dancing around naked and performing other indignities, then yeah, I'm sure his family would be horribly insulted.
In the case of Tarkin it's fine, but it's a slippery slope and shouldn't be done without careful consideration. Hepburn's family was probably happy just to get money.
It's an insult if they recreated someone in CGI just to sell products. Rogue One on the other hand needs Tarkin because he's a huge part of the Death Star Story.
i actually had no idea the actor was dead until someone told me he was all CGI... i think it looks superb... what DEAD EYES are people talking about? bullshit... looks amazing
It's confirmation bias. People know the actor is dead so they know what they're seeing on screen is fake and therefore can't bring themselves to believe it. Every little flaw will be extremely acentuated because of that.
not true. I had no idea the scene was going to happen and any older characters were going to be a part of it, and as soon as that scene happened, i felt something wasn't right and I was right. I went in a blank slate and that part was just unbearably bad.
steven andrew Well, it's not the same for everyone. Some people do find it easy to notice it's CGI than others. I am also an "exception" because I knew he was dead and it was CGI, and it still blew my mind and I thought it was amazingly well done. The thing is, "knowing it" does have an influence on most people.
Bruno Bessa Im sure it does. It just took me by surprise and I felt it was off from the first moment. There was something inhuman about motions and expressions. They even had good reference material and it still fell short.
steven andrew It's a very hard thing to do. As it is said in the video, we just know humans too well, so any "fake" human has to be incredibly convincing to trick us. We're not there yet, technologically. But Tarkin was, without a doubt, the best CGI human ever made up until this point. Maybe with time they will remaster these scenes as technology advances. Who knows.
For certain more people would have bitched if they had used different actors as some are suggesting in these comments. Just look at the whining about Han Solo...
It's not a question of appreciating things. It's a question of making it right. When the technology is there. Few years back you could tell when ships were CGI and looked fake compared to models. Now, they don't. They are as crisp and real and as sharp as models. So I'm all for CG in this case. Now CG humans today look bad if not terrible in most scenes. Specially in close ups. Get it right, THEN use it. Before that, lay it to rest. It takes the audience out of the movie experience. Its like "LOOK HERE! A FAKE DIGITAL CHARACTER" in the middle of a great movie. Now...ten years from now, an ethical question will have to be debated if we should or should not use CG humans...risking the downfall of actors.
***** Aren't we all expressing opinions? But in some ways...it's like debating colours. Some point out a red colour others will nah...it's more like an orange. Some point a blue colour and someone will say nah...it's more of a turquoise...so is this fact or opinion? I would also add that...if it doesn't move or look realistic. How is it not terrible? How is it not bad? While on the other hand, who ever said the ships is Episode 4 back in 77 didn't look real? Who ever said that Frank Oz's puppetry of Yoda in Empire Strikes back looked bad? We all bought what we saw on the screen as real. And it's something that sometimes CGI fails to do. That's a fact. But when it does look seemless and real, it's movie magic at it's best.
Jean-Francois Joanisse You know there's little opportunity to get something right without using it, right? Everything needs to see some light of day in order to improve. And you clearly have no idea what you're arguing for and pulling points that you THINK make sense. The casualty of UA-cam comments... research. There's absolutely no way that CGI will threaten real actors, as CGI is quite hard and expensive to make. Regardless of technological advancements in the next 10 years, you will need an artist behind the wheel to create the CGI. Technology may make it easier to make it look realistic, but in no way shape or form decrease the actual workload of creating such graphics in the first place. It's not a easy task to even bring CGI to the `bad` that you claim Rogue One`s is. As an artist, I'm astounded by the fact that you don't even attempt to show some respect towards towards these talented artists. But, guessing by your comments, I doubt you would appreciate art in general either. If you want to make it right, ask yourself - right to who? you, or someone else? Also, as a programmer, you do know that no one will spend time (useful to actually improving it) tweaking technology that won't be used. It's equivalent to sitting around doing nothing. Human CGI is a completely separate deal from ship/object CGI, you can't use only one in the hope of a completely-different technology to improve. It's like saying developing cell phones will improve your desktop computer. As to the ethical question, I suggest you better consider if it's ethical for machine self-learning computers to replace literally every job that a human can occupy (which will possibly be able to create CGI replacing humans on its own, but at that point, every other job on the planet will be at risk already.)
Being a CGI artist I can say this to every person saying that Tarkin and/or Leia look bad - you have no idea what you're saying and are basically bashing people who made probably the best effort to recreate a person. Good job ILM. And on a side note - I need that movie in fullHD and in as high bitrate as possible - it looks amazing even on UA-cam.
Adam K Eh. That's a weak position. It can still look bad whilst a huge amount of work went into it. There are parts of Paul Walkers CG face in Fast 7 that look 100% convincing. There are others where it is super obvious and bad. Doesn't mean I am discrediting the world. It's hard work making a convincing human.
Adam K The thing is, this is brand new technology. It may look fake at times but it's still astonishing to see how great they have it so far. Imagine how well this will be advanced 20 years from now.
Using that argument, a lot of work when into things like the Tacoma Narrows bridge, but was it good? No. it collapsed. Effort doesn't trump result. For all the effort in this, (and i have done digital modeling) this is a bad result that needed WAAAAAAY more time to get right. They missed the mark. I didn't watch the movie with advanced knowledge that there would be this level of digital work or even resurrected characters and soon as it popped on screen i cringed. It was like watching the Final Fantasy: Spirits With movie. Just not good.
Bumblebert Star Wars fanboys losing their shit is a tradition that has existed since the Holiday Special. They complain about insignificant things to make them feel smarter and better even if they come off as raving lunatics.
I was amazed. I didn't realize Tarkin was CGI at all and thought they found a near double to play him. Princess Leia on the other hand looked like she jumped out of a PS4.
Would have been nice to have seen what you're talking about but this video doesn't show a single clip of Leia, despite the video title suggesting this is all about Leia.
Well, say what you want, but I didn't notice that Tarkin was CGI until I saw his face up close. Still, it's very impressive technology, something that we could only dream of in 2007, let alone when original trilogy was released.
I find it funny that THREE people I spoke with who DIDN'T know who Peter Cushing/Tarkin was.....did NOT notice the CGI..however they were asking me about Carrie Fisher..."how did they do that". I think if you KNOW something is CGI, you are going to say "it's not good enough", etc. I think ILM did a fantastic job of bringing back both Tarkin and a young Leia to SW fans.
My brother knew who they were and thought that they were look alike actors, he had no idea that they were CGI. I thought they were incredibly well done as well, made the movie so much better to see them again and match so well to A New Hope, even though I knew they were CGI at first glance, it was still great.
I think it's partly a generational thing as well. Having grown up during the early boom period of CGI in movies & video games, people of my generation (early 30's) have been almost trained to spot CGI. We've grown up watching that gradual evolution in technology & we've seen it succeed in some cases & fail in others, making us all the more sensitive when it comes to noticing when something isn't quite right because we know what to look for, we expect it & we actively look for it. Older people don't necessarily think like that & it therefore doesn't occur to them that an actor on screen might be anything other than what he or she seems & certainly not the reanimated features of someone who died more than 20 years ago...
I am just getting into Star Wars. When I watched Rogue One, I didn't even know that Peter Cushing had died, let alone that his character was re-created using CGI. Now that I know, I am VERY impressed that this kind of technology is even possible.
Tarkin was more of a main character. He was there throughout the entire movie, whereas Leia only had about 30 seconds. So there was more purpose to do well on Tarkin.
Moff Tarkin looks like the real Peter Cushing till he moves too much, then he looks like a robot almost. Mostly with the eyes. If they had given him less movement people probably would have been more wowed.
Agree. If we'd seen a glimpse of him, it may have been enough. Having said that, in the glimpse of Princess Leia at the end, I didn't think it looked very life-like either. Maybe they should keep the eyes of the real actors they lay the CGI on top of.
da5idnz I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been on screen as much as he was, just that his screen time might have been handled with more subtlety and his movements could have been slower, he blinked too much in a couple scenes.
The lighting in his eyes, and other small details of is face are off. Including the animation. It's still very recognizably uncanny valley. But as they've said in this video, making realistic CGI humans is one of the hardest things to do. They got pretty close, but the difficulty curve to complete realism is exponential in scale.
No. It has to be perfect. If you noticed anything wrong with it then it failed. You're crediting hard work and not the result which is completely backwards. I can spend all day making a shit painting. You gonna praise me for that?
+killboggins But it didn't fail. It was not even noticeable to Me. Not to mention that even if it wasn't perfect, You'd still not notice it thanks to the lighting.
The Zant General they will just say it's because you're stupid that you didn't notice and they're so smart because oh they noticed. never mind the fact they went in already knowing it was CGI.. oh but they're so smart.. cuz they knew beforehand.. that's like if i tell you a stock will increase so you bet on it then you go oh look at me im so smart.. no you're not.. it looked as close as fake can be and complaining about it is really stupid. why not complain about every puppet and CGI ever used in star wars? or just shut your mouth. it didn't look "terrible" it looked "amazing". why does everything have to be pass/fail? oh I barely noticed a little tiny something so fail.. oh I noticed a shitty puppet that didn't look real in episode 4 so the whole movie is a fail.. it's a movie bros...
Bringing back an old popular actor to a young age or a dead popular actor back to life with CGI technology will always draw viewers' attention and scrutiny no matter how good the job is. If the actors were unpopular, then chances are that you wouldn't have known it was a CGI work because this particular job was well done.
magnetmac1 that is true. That's something I forgot to mention. If you're completely new to the Star Wars universe, you'll probably never notice it is CGI.
Really?! Interesting. I feel the opposite. Although I did like Tarkin's appearance some of the scenes were jarring. But I thought with just a couple seconds of Leia they did really well!
Meanwhile on the big screen, seeing Tarkin next to real people was jarring and took me right out of the film. Absolutely bizarre that they didn't just cast someone else and use proesthetics and CGI.
Ernest Essuah Mensah Welcome, now you are less ignorant. Disney, News Corp, Comcast, and Time Warner own almost everything we consume. 4 massive media conglomerates that can be dangerous if not checked.
Dimitri Petrenko No, he did not have to look exactly like Peter. He did however have to look like a human being. For me, CGI-Tarkin does NOT cross the uncanny valley, and it's not very immersive, but irritating. :-/ Still, kudos to the artists involved!
JurassicCollectables How is that not a problem? did you even read my comments? did you watch the movies? the story flows into eachother the same day, it would be a little fucking weird if a different face shows up if you would watch it in story order...
Don't you mean a ps4 hardware level render? The animation of a 3d model has nothing to do with what hardware it's rendered on. You obviously are totally ignorant as to how computer graphics in film are created. Blindly cynical. To respond directly, no, they didn't re-create Tarkin in Little Big Planet and After Effects it in.
Stop whining. A PS4 would never be able to render them in real time. Please do some research before trying to act competent in the field. They looked fine, and most people didn't even realize that they were full CGI
Its not bad CGI, its just noticeable. it through me off when i first saw it, and I was more distracted trying to figure out if it was actually CGI than focusing on the story itself.
@Joshua Ecker, yeah it was definitly noticable, especially when you have a "CGI"-character that has rather many scenes. It was still exceptional work and i did love to see Tarkin again. (obviously)
Not everybody has the same ability to tell the difference between real humans from impostors. Disney will probably be able to replace their screenwriters with next gen chatbots in a few years and only a few will complain.
When I saw the reflection in the glass of the Star Destroyer, I thought, "Hey, it's a character that looks like Tarkin", and then he started talking and I had a major geek-out. Yeah, you could still tell he wasn't human, but the performance had the nuances of Cushing's clipped, uber-cold original acting, the voice was definitely passable, and the thing was done well enough and charmingly enough as a bone to fans, that enough suspension of disbelief to not be cynical about it was easy. This was way better than coming up with a lame reason to not feature Tarkin, or having a character written to replace him.
You want makeup and prosthetics? They already tried that back in Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith. Young Tarkin in that movie was played by Wayne Pygram. Now I just don't get how everyone is complaining about the Tarkin CGI when it is 10 times better than this: vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/5/5b/Young_Tarkin.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20071027053245
I don’t see why they can’t just use a new actor. It solves the issue of crappy makeup, and the creepy uncanny valley feeling of a CGI face (no matter how well made it might be.) Sure it means the character will look a little different from the original, but it’s really no different to theatre productions where many actors portray the same character over time, and that never bothers anyone. Much like theatre they can just recast the role to someone who fits the description, in fact the guy who played the stand-in for the CGI Tarkin during filming already looked a lot like him, and they used his voice in the film too. So why bother with CGI?
The way I see it, is that if you don't try it like this first, you don't really push the technology behind it. We kind of need to go through the uncanny valley before we can perfect the art of it
It's actually not. At least with a real human actor, people used to CGI can tell there's actually a person there on screen. Even if he looks different from the original, at least he looks real.
Joel Cardona - I got uncanny valley vibes from Leia as soon as she appeared but for whatever reason hadn't questioned Tarkin at all, maybe because his scenes weren't as brightly lit? idk but I find it interesting how different people react differently to the recreations. Pretty soon they'll have cgi people who're 100% indistinguishable from real actors.
That's awesome YO! As soon as I saw Tarkin I started geekin out. And every time he popped up on screen ALL 3 times I saw ROGUE ONE I couldn't help but giggle and say with JOY "Fuckin Tarkin"!! The Cgi was Soo great, I honestly couldn't believe how beautiful he looked. I didn't expect to see him in the movie til that "BREATH" teaser a couple weeks before R1 dropped and still wasn't prepared to be blown away by his appearance.
I do love what they did for each character. As for the ethics of CGI deceased actors? I would say it's a case-by-case basis. Sometimes people will give their approval and sometimes it serves the story and more than just an ad for Twinkies. It honestly depends on "who" and "what."
I could tell Tarkin and Leia were CGI after just a few seconds, but dang, it still looked so good. Better than the best videogame graphics. There's definitely room for improvement, but I can't see anything topping this for a good 10 years. There is of course the whole 'ethical' question, but I think these are done in good taste. There will have to be some rules set in motion once this kind of thing gets common, though.
Went to see this with my mother and she had no idea Peter Cushing was cgi. She didn't believe me when I told her he's been dead for more than a few years. While I could tell Tarkin was cgi, young Leia was nearly perfect. Keep raising the bar ILM your hard work is much appreciated. And Tarkin did look amazing.
I am doing cgi myself, and putting cgi faces in shadows or high contrast and dark scenes, or adding grain and putting it far back in 3d space (instead of 20cm away from the camera) really could help sell inperfections etc, but great job ilm
Half the time Tarkin CGI was good, the other half it just looked off. The Leia CGI was pretty bad though. I suppose because it was in a well lit background.
first time seeing Tarkin my response was "wow", I loved it, no issues with me. People against the "resurrection", stop watching movies then of actors that have passed.. because they're gone.. people had no issue with his appearance in the clone wars animated series... He's part of the star wars universe, and he just like Carrie Fisher, will always remain.
The first movie where I felt the uncanny valley was finally bridged. I believed I was seeing Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher, which is incredible. However, the fact I knew one was dead and the other far older, psychologically made me teeter on the edge of that 'valley' though. I think if nobody knew who these people were, everyone would be praising the CG.
diogo santos How can you say there's no such thing and in the same sentence say the voice actor, Guy Henry, exists. They didn't hire him purely for his voice. A *real* person who looks close enough is better than a CGI creation that doesn't look real.
Close enough is not a standard in professional film making. People tend to want to get immerse with the story and character, and if they hired a "close enough" looking guy to replace the original actor in a previous movie, all you're gonna get is people complaining about why is the person different and ETC. Plus, these kinds of CGI work help push the boundaries of our CG technology. It's good to have challenge and to learn new things to keep progressing anyway.
SethMcFartlane the star wars saga is all about continuity, if tarkin had been a completly different man 2 hours before we again see him in a new hope it would have been far worse than actually recreating him digitally in a very good way
Eugene Miller Yeong "Close enough is not a standard in professional film making." It very much is. All the more evident under a video of a "close enough" CGI recreation of an actor. The original Palpatine was played by two different actors in Empire and Jedi. There are tons of examples of different actors playing the same character in different movies. People will get over it quickly. What they won't get over, particularly in a handful of years, is awful CGI. This film will fate as poorly as the effects in the prequels.
the rebels' CGI is seamless, Carrie Fisher's is pretty good, and Peter Cushing's CGI didn't fool me like the rebels' CGI, but it was a pretty good job. For the type of technology we have currently, this a job well done! :)
I had no clue at all that Tarkin was digital. No clue. I saw the movie and he looked so real, didn't even look "digital" at all. I found out after I saw the movie and looking at these videos here on youtube. But watching it it literally never crossed my mind like "ah yes this is CGI". Very impressive.
It looks great and during the movie in theater where you can't pause or go back to nitpick if you didn't knew he already had died you couldn't tell it's CGI. I know friends who had no idea the actor had died way back and thought it was a real person.
I didn't tell my wife and kids about Peter Cushing and they did not notice anything strange about him in the film. Personally I think they did a tremendous job, even knowing he's a CGI character. When Leia turned around my kids wondered how they made her young again (because they had seen her in the force awakens). Thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
Han Solo well since it's a matter of capturing human expressions that's obviously very subjective. some people didn't even know he was a cgi character.
When I saw the young Lea (FIsher) at the end of the movie, all the sudden I was transformed to the summer of 1977. I felt 7 years old again.......for a moment.
Beause they used real life RDJ and Douglas in those scenes. Its much more different and difficult when you start from scratch since Peter Cushing is dead.
while this was certainly Impressive, I don't want to see this become normal. Let the dead R.I.P. I'd hate for them to think they can do this with Carry Fisher for Episode IX...I'd rather they change whatever story they have planned and morn Leia's off camera death on film. It would be cathartic...Digital resurrection just seams inappropriate to me. Even with the family's approval, that doesn't mean anything if people are just going to "cash in" on their dead families. (not implying Cushing's family did this, just that others will inevitably) I wouldn't want anyone digitally resurrecting me, putting words into my mouth. It's disrespectful. We are people, not digital effects. A long dead actor once famously said, "We are not machine men, with machine minds'... All that said. The technology is extremely impressive. From an artistic POV, I can appreciate what they have accomplished.
Shawn It was only really done because it was a prequel. Tarkin is 100% absolutely vital to the creation of the Death Star. Not mentioning him would be really unfulfilling for Rogue One. I can see the grey area because he's dead, but his character was very important. I don't see it any different than another actor playing his role. Having another actor would be almost the same thing, as the actor would wear makeup and clothes to seem like Tarkin.
I was blown away when I seen them both in the movie, I think they did a fantastic job with the CGI. the only reason some ppl didn't like it and thought the CGI was shit, is because they knew the person is dead or now old so The CGI stood out more. that's what i think
Those who object are idiots. They brought an actor and his character back to life in a film adding to the story where he already appeared. I don't think of this process in this application any different than using prosthetic makeup.
I thought it was believable at first, but then after the movie I was like, "Wait, that actor should have died of old age by now, wow, he was totally CGI.
Just a thought since the technology is finally able to recreate this capability. I think it would be a good idea for actors whom are chosen and selected to be given the option of a contract allowing actors to have archival data taken of their faces and any other necessary information with the latest technology so that in the future if the information were needed for a film they could recreate what is needed with whatever superior technology is available at the time. Of course it would all be written out and if the actor agrees then it would be up to the estate to accept the terms and conditions of the such future proposed compensation and filming content so that the proceeds can be given to the estate or whomever is outlined on the contract from which the actor originally signed on.
Don’t Star Wars own the likenesses to these characters? Like every young Obi wan looks like Ewan mcgregor. All Han recreations in video games or toys look like Harrison Ford etc.
It's different when it's a live-action movie with the digital recreation of a dead man. They had to ask permission from Cushing's estate to go forward with the idea.
@@IngolfLau I don't think you have. He DED. Even if they had the "right," I don't think they have the MORAL right. they did the right thing by asking first.
I felt that Tarkin got better as the movie went along. The first shot of him kept making me think of Spy from TF2 for some reason, but as it went on it became far more natural and the last shot of Tarkin looked full on real. All in all the effect is groundbreaking and ILM are continuing to show us why we trust them with our most beloved franchises. Props to all the CG artists working at ILM. They've officially resurrected the dead.
In my opinion I was surprised that they resurrected the image of Grand Moff Tarkin and I have to say that I didn't care about the CGI. A real fan shouldn't care what they had to do to bring the character back to life. When I first saw it I let my imagination go through the story and was amazed with it . People have a lot to complain with ohhh the cgi was terrible. or why they had to do that, or they could've just used someone with a mask . Well no it shouldn't matter they did it in their own image and it was brilliant
I don't mind actor who died appearing in CGI but this one wasn't that great. It was pretty obvious and bad compared to Westworld or Ant-Mans Michael Douglas.
I do think it's fair, don't forget all the material they have for Cushing, including an actor. Of course it's still better to have the real actors but Douglas and Hopkins changed a lot in all those years.
Valeria Caissa they had a stand in who had to imitate cushing, and they still needed to modify his performance because the guy had different movements. that is not the case when you have a real actor to work with. plus you get to keep the eyes and a lot of other elements. its completely different to what they did in rogue one so i stand by what i said.
Exactly! People insist on comparing these uses of CGI regardless of the huge difference between them. Clearly bringing back an actor ALREADY DEAD is way harder than just applying digital make up over the actual actor while he performs.
Exactly what i thought. It looks good in still images, but you now somethings off when they start moving. They could have easily avoided it by only showing Tarkin from behind with his face visible in the reflection of the windows. In Westworlds flashbacks they didn't show Anthony Hopkins talking and it looked great. I don't understand why Carrie Fisher looked so bad, when they basically did the same thing so much better in Ant-Man.
The Zant General The X-wing fighters that were added from deleted scenes of the original movie still look real because they act like real people. Tarkin in RO doesn't. He barely moves. If you compare him in RO against the real Tarkin in ANH, you'll see a huge difference in performance. His model can be very accurate, but the animation isn't lifelike.
Они так рассказывают, будто разницы никто не увидел. Этот компьютерный персонаже режет глаза, ничего у них не вышло. Получился фотографичный, НО искусственный образ.
JackWolf and while they can do great with creatures, when they do humans they are fine and great until they open there mouth than something can start looking off
where they fucked up was making it fully digital...they should have blended the eyes and mouth, 2 crucial parts that are give-aways....eyes and mouth of the original actor, with some added cheekbone would have been enough...
The exhilarating experience of seeing Peter Cushing brought back to life is to me the absolute definition of "movie magic." It was astonishing to the point that it was a little scary. Resurrecting these characters with such incredible precision was essential to tying Rogue One into the larger story. The technique seems to have limited acceptable use so it's probably a good thing that it is so difficult and time-consuming to accomplish.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
people are too nitpicky I thought the CGI faces were incredible!
Agreed.
I agree. They are awesome. They did an even better job than the CGI effects they implemented for the character of Renesmee in Breaking Dawn/Twilight, which were considered cutting edge as well.
Maybe you need your eyes testing then.
I mean, it's certainly impressive but it still doesn't look real... his wrinkles and folds under his eyes for instance look painted on and his skin overall seems to have the elasticity of a teenager.
***** I know it wasn't real from the moment I saw it for the first time but I was impress of how close it is for Peter Cushing and a real human being!
There were some people (as annotated in the video) who watched this and weren't aware it was CGI. I think we're unconsciously looking for differences because we know they're deceased actors. The job they did with the technology and lighting was, honestly, stunning.
I don't see how creating CGI versions of characters because the actor/actress has died or is too old is an insult to the person. I doubt Peter Cushing is turning in his grave.
It's an insult if they're using that person's likeness to do things they wouldn't have participated in if they were alive. Like using dead actors to sell products. It's an insult to their legacy, not them personally, that's why they need permission from the actor's estate before they're allowed to do this.
I'm sure Audrey Hepburn wouldn't be honoured to be used for selling chocolate.
I'm not talking about Tarkin specifically, as I'm sure he would have participated if he could have, but you said you didn't see how it could be an insult, and I was giving you an example. If, say, they'd had CG Peter Cushing dancing around naked and performing other indignities, then yeah, I'm sure his family would be horribly insulted.
In the case of Tarkin it's fine, but it's a slippery slope and shouldn't be done without careful consideration. Hepburn's family was probably happy just to get money.
It's an insult if they recreated someone in CGI just to sell products. Rogue One on the other hand needs Tarkin because he's a huge part of the Death Star Story.
If Carrie Fisher herself loved the result, then nobody can complain about it...
So something is immune to criticism just cause someone said so? Ok lmao
i actually had no idea the actor was dead until someone told me he was all CGI... i think it looks superb... what DEAD EYES are people talking about? bullshit... looks amazing
It's confirmation bias. People know the actor is dead so they know what they're seeing on screen is fake and therefore can't bring themselves to believe it. Every little flaw will be extremely acentuated because of that.
not true. I had no idea the scene was going to happen and any older characters were going to be a part of it, and as soon as that scene happened, i felt something wasn't right and I was right. I went in a blank slate and that part was just unbearably bad.
steven andrew
Well, it's not the same for everyone. Some people do find it easy to notice it's CGI than others. I am also an "exception" because I knew he was dead and it was CGI, and it still blew my mind and I thought it was amazingly well done.
The thing is, "knowing it" does have an influence on most people.
Bruno Bessa
Im sure it does. It just took me by surprise and I felt it was off from the first moment. There was something inhuman about motions and expressions. They even had good reference material and it still fell short.
steven andrew
It's a very hard thing to do. As it is said in the video, we just know humans too well, so any "fake" human has to be incredibly convincing to trick us. We're not there yet, technologically. But Tarkin was, without a doubt, the best CGI human ever made up until this point.
Maybe with time they will remaster these scenes as technology advances. Who knows.
This is goddamn amazing. People apparently cant appreciate anything...
True.
For certain more people would have bitched if they had used different actors as some are suggesting in these comments. Just look at the whining about Han Solo...
It's not a question of appreciating things. It's a question of making it right. When the technology is there. Few years back you could tell when ships were CGI and looked fake compared to models. Now, they don't. They are as crisp and real and as sharp as models. So I'm all for CG in this case. Now CG humans today look bad if not terrible in most scenes. Specially in close ups. Get it right, THEN use it. Before that, lay it to rest. It takes the audience out of the movie experience. Its like "LOOK HERE! A FAKE DIGITAL CHARACTER" in the middle of a great movie.
Now...ten years from now, an ethical question will have to be debated if we should or should not use CG humans...risking the downfall of actors.
***** Aren't we all expressing opinions?
But in some ways...it's like debating colours. Some point out a red colour others will nah...it's more like an orange. Some point a blue colour and someone will say nah...it's more of a turquoise...so is this fact or opinion?
I would also add that...if it doesn't move or look realistic. How is it not terrible? How is it not bad?
While on the other hand, who ever said the ships is Episode 4 back in 77 didn't look real? Who ever said that Frank Oz's puppetry of Yoda in Empire Strikes back looked bad? We all bought what we saw on the screen as real. And it's something that sometimes CGI fails to do. That's a fact. But when it does look seemless and real, it's movie magic at it's best.
Jean-Francois Joanisse You know there's little opportunity to get something right without using it, right? Everything needs to see some light of day in order to improve.
And you clearly have no idea what you're arguing for and pulling points that you THINK make sense. The casualty of UA-cam comments... research. There's absolutely no way that CGI will threaten real actors, as CGI is quite hard and expensive to make. Regardless of technological advancements in the next 10 years, you will need an artist behind the wheel to create the CGI. Technology may make it easier to make it look realistic, but in no way shape or form decrease the actual workload of creating such graphics in the first place.
It's not a easy task to even bring CGI to the `bad` that you claim Rogue One`s is. As an artist, I'm astounded by the fact that you don't even attempt to show some respect towards towards these talented artists. But, guessing by your comments, I doubt you would appreciate art in general either. If you want to make it right, ask yourself - right to who? you, or someone else?
Also, as a programmer, you do know that no one will spend time (useful to actually improving it) tweaking technology that won't be used. It's equivalent to sitting around doing nothing. Human CGI is a completely separate deal from ship/object CGI, you can't use only one in the hope of a completely-different technology to improve. It's like saying developing cell phones will improve your desktop computer.
As to the ethical question, I suggest you better consider if it's ethical for machine self-learning computers to replace literally every job that a human can occupy (which will possibly be able to create CGI replacing humans on its own, but at that point, every other job on the planet will be at risk already.)
Being a CGI artist I can say this to every person saying that Tarkin and/or Leia look bad - you have no idea what you're saying and are basically bashing people who made probably the best effort to recreate a person.
Good job ILM.
And on a side note - I need that movie in fullHD and in as high bitrate as possible - it looks amazing even on UA-cam.
Westworld, Ant-man, Cap 3. All WAY better than Tarkin.
Adam K Eh. That's a weak position. It can still look bad whilst a huge amount of work went into it. There are parts of Paul Walkers CG face in Fast 7 that look 100% convincing. There are others where it is super obvious and bad.
Doesn't mean I am discrediting the world. It's hard work making a convincing human.
Its called the uncanny valley. Effort alone does not make something good.
Adam K The thing is, this is brand new technology. It may look fake at times but it's still astonishing to see how great they have it so far. Imagine how well this will be advanced 20 years from now.
Using that argument, a lot of work when into things like the Tacoma Narrows bridge, but was it good? No. it collapsed. Effort doesn't trump result. For all the effort in this, (and i have done digital modeling) this is a bad result that needed WAAAAAAY more time to get right. They missed the mark. I didn't watch the movie with advanced knowledge that there would be this level of digital work or even resurrected characters and soon as it popped on screen i cringed. It was like watching the Final Fantasy: Spirits With movie. Just not good.
Cushings estate approved it and the head of his estate said she thought it was great - whats the issue?
Bumblebert Star Wars fanboys losing their shit is a tradition that has existed since the Holiday Special. They complain about insignificant things to make them feel smarter and better even if they come off as raving lunatics.
And as a horror loon I thought it was great to see "him" again!
Because some people just love to bitch and moan...
Obviously a few bad apples which is all it takes to create a stink.
Cushing also stated multiple times that he wanted to be in the sequels.
mannn at first i thought they just had someone who looks like carrie fisher as leia in rogue one
I was amazed. I didn't realize Tarkin was CGI at all and thought they found a near double to play him. Princess Leia on the other hand looked like she jumped out of a PS4.
Robert Angle She looked like an Xbox avatar :/
Robert Angle I disagree. It looks like Tarkin jumped out of a PS4, and Leia jumped out of a PS2.
Robert Angle Vlogs it was the opposite for me
Would have been nice to have seen what you're talking about but this video doesn't show a single clip of Leia, despite the video title suggesting this is all about Leia.
Tbh when I first see the film I thought leia was body double and Tarkin was just Tarkin.
" and it´s the groundbreaking visual effects that have everyone TARKIN" 0:38
this guy gets it
MyNameIsND lol
MyNameIsND Now you're tarkin!
Hah 😂
this would've been a hilarious line
The cgi was so good I didn’t find out Marf was dead before this shit lol
My mom didn't even notice it was CGI 😂😂😂
B. M. Your mom is old and no longer see week or in normal framerates.
Well, say what you want, but I didn't notice that Tarkin was CGI until I saw his face up close. Still, it's very impressive technology, something that we could only dream of in 2007, let alone when original trilogy was released.
same, i knew leia was cgi but didn't even notice tarkin was too until i rewatched the scene.
srsly???
the darkside of the force clouded your mothers vision my friend.
I find it funny that THREE people I spoke with who DIDN'T know who Peter Cushing/Tarkin was.....did NOT notice the CGI..however they were asking me about Carrie Fisher..."how did they do that". I think if you KNOW something is CGI, you are going to say "it's not good enough", etc. I think ILM did a fantastic job of bringing back both Tarkin and a young Leia to SW fans.
My brother knew who they were and thought that they were look alike actors, he had no idea that they were CGI. I thought they were incredibly well done as well, made the movie so much better to see them again and match so well to A New Hope, even though I knew they were CGI at first glance, it was still great.
I think it's partly a generational thing as well. Having grown up during the early boom period of CGI in movies & video games, people of my generation (early 30's) have been almost trained to spot CGI. We've grown up watching that gradual evolution in technology & we've seen it succeed in some cases & fail in others, making us all the more sensitive when it comes to noticing when something isn't quite right because we know what to look for, we expect it & we actively look for it. Older people don't necessarily think like that & it therefore doesn't occur to them that an actor on screen might be anything other than what he or she seems & certainly not the reanimated features of someone who died more than 20 years ago...
I am just getting into Star Wars. When I watched Rogue One, I didn't even know that Peter Cushing had died, let alone that his character was re-created using CGI. Now that I know, I am VERY impressed that this kind of technology is even possible.
"The original plans for the station I kept there..."
"...are they not?"
I forgot what character said that Argghhhhh
Sebastien O. Tarkin said that
The Scheffinator "Well, yes.."
***** Thank you, couldn't figure out the last part
The CG work was better on Tarkin than on Leia.
They had more reff for Tarkin.
Tarkin was more of a main character. He was there throughout the entire movie, whereas Leia only had about 30 seconds. So there was more purpose to do well on Tarkin.
They both look like garbage but Leia was far more realistic, even the guys who worked on it said that as they put way more work into her...
SecretAgentMan00 I can agree on that
SecretAgentMan00 probably because Tarkin is older and requires more work on his face probably. and because he was in the movie more.
Moff Tarkin looks like the real Peter Cushing till he moves too much, then he looks like a robot almost. Mostly with the eyes. If they had given him less movement people probably would have been more wowed.
Agree. If we'd seen a glimpse of him, it may have been enough. Having said that, in the glimpse of Princess Leia at the end, I didn't think it looked very life-like either. Maybe they should keep the eyes of the real actors they lay the CGI on top of.
da5idnz
I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been on screen as much as he was, just that his screen time might have been handled with more subtlety and his movements could have been slower, he blinked too much in a couple scenes.
For example at 2:39 he looks pretty damn close to real, because his movement is much slower and there's not as much eye movement.
You are right, animators solely are responsible for the fakeness of the final product. The model and texture look great.
the eye movement always gives it away
Love the work they put into this. Tarkin looks incredibly realistic.
The lighting in his eyes, and other small details of is face are off. Including the animation. It's still very recognizably uncanny valley. But as they've said in this video, making realistic CGI humans is one of the hardest things to do.
They got pretty close, but the difficulty curve to complete realism is exponential in scale.
Nobody cares that it wasn't perfect. It was _believable_.
No. It has to be perfect. If you noticed anything wrong with it then it failed. You're crediting hard work and not the result which is completely backwards. I can spend all day making a shit painting. You gonna praise me for that?
+killboggins But it didn't fail. It was not even noticeable to Me. Not to mention that even if it wasn't perfect, You'd still not notice it thanks to the lighting.
The Zant General they will just say it's because you're stupid that you didn't notice and they're so smart because oh they noticed. never mind the fact they went in already knowing it was CGI.. oh but they're so smart.. cuz they knew beforehand.. that's like if i tell you a stock will increase so you bet on it then you go oh look at me im so smart.. no you're not.. it looked as close as fake can be and complaining about it is really stupid. why not complain about every puppet and CGI ever used in star wars? or just shut your mouth. it didn't look "terrible" it looked "amazing". why does everything have to be pass/fail? oh I barely noticed a little tiny something so fail.. oh I noticed a shitty puppet that didn't look real in episode 4 so the whole movie is a fail.. it's a movie bros...
Yes, you could tell it was CGI but it still looked amazing. Sets the bar very high.
Bringing back an old popular actor to a young age or a dead popular actor back to life with CGI technology will always draw viewers' attention and scrutiny no matter how good the job is.
If the actors were unpopular, then chances are that you wouldn't have known it was a CGI work because this particular job was well done.
magnetmac1 that is true. That's something I forgot to mention. If you're completely new to the Star Wars universe, you'll probably never notice it is CGI.
IAmHawkeye316 Cgi paul walker was better
on the small screen Tarkin looks flawless, Leia not so much
Really?! Interesting. I feel the opposite. Although I did like Tarkin's appearance some of the scenes were jarring. But I thought with just a couple seconds of Leia they did really well!
Voice Nerd I'm talking about watching him on my smartphone. In the big screen is more noticeable.
Dimitri Bitu ahh gotcha
Meanwhile on the big screen, seeing Tarkin next to real people was jarring and took me right out of the film. Absolutely bizarre that they didn't just cast someone else and use proesthetics and CGI.
Henry Hill I felt the exact same way. I could tell something was off while watching the movie. His movements were "smooth" across the screen.
Can we take a moment to acknowledge the fact that Disney owns almost every shit that comes on tv?
Ernie Essuah Mensah They are taking over the world ...
Slowly, but surely ... The Empire will rise !
I do not mind, as long as they do not ruin our childhood with remakes and give me mickey ears :v
Ernest Essuah Mensah Welcome, now you are less ignorant. Disney, News Corp, Comcast, and Time Warner own almost everything we consume. 4 massive media conglomerates that can be dangerous if not checked.
Didn't even knew Disney owned ABC until the end of the video
Great featurette hope they include it on the blu-ray
CoinOpTV Hey coin! And I agree 😃 Love your channel
CoinOpTV nope they didn’t ugh
“And Lucasfilm is owned by Disney” we really needed to know that
They really wanted to get their name out there. Typical Disney
How do you think they got that access?
Lucasfilm was destroyed by Disney. Shame
By the way, ABC is owned by Disney too.
They legally have to say that because the network this ran on is also owned by Disney
Why didn't they use the actor they had? He looks just like Peter Cushing. Only some prosthetics and make up would have been necessary... :/
That would probably even more obvious, since he had to look exactly like Peter was in Ep4
Dimitri Petrenko No, he did not have to look exactly like Peter. He did however have to look like a human being. For me, CGI-Tarkin does NOT cross the uncanny valley, and it's not very immersive, but irritating. :-/ Still, kudos to the artists involved!
Tek Jansen But he actually has to look EXACTLY like Tarkin in EP4 because the movies are at MOST a day away from eachother...
Tek Jansen yeah I think a replacement actor would have been fine. After all Ewan McGregor becomes Alec Guiness. Whats the problem
JurassicCollectables How is that not a problem? did you even read my comments? did you watch the movies? the story flows into eachother the same day, it would be a little fucking weird if a different face shows up if you would watch it in story order...
Now the marketing department tries to convince us that such job wasn't a PS4-level animation.
Ikr funny that Disney owns ABC and they are doing a report promoting how advanced ILM's (also owned by Disney technically) effects are
Totally agree though I am currently being flamed in comments for stating the same as a 3d artist ..
Don't you mean a ps4 hardware level render? The animation of a 3d model has nothing to do with what hardware it's rendered on. You obviously are totally ignorant as to how computer graphics in film are created. Blindly cynical.
To respond directly, no, they didn't re-create Tarkin in Little Big Planet and After Effects it in.
Stop whining. A PS4 would never be able to render them in real time. Please do some research before trying to act competent in the field. They looked fine, and most people didn't even realize that they were full CGI
I almost think they should have hired Naughty Dog to do the facial animation. Uncharted 4 has the best facial animation I've ever seen, game or movie.
I had no idea that was CGI. Well done.
U dumb?
He's been dead for two decades, surely that should have rung some alarm bells?
Noblesse Oblige Nigga
It kinda looks fake too
“Well then you are lost”
People just want to find something to bitch at. They did an amazing job
Holy crap.. I think we're finally in "the future"
What percent, like 2% have said the cig is bad? It's great
Its not bad CGI, its just noticeable. it through me off when i first saw it, and I was more distracted trying to figure out if it was actually CGI than focusing on the story itself.
Marriage is bad!
@Joshua Ecker, yeah it was definitly noticable, especially when you have a "CGI"-character that has rather many scenes. It was still exceptional work and i did love to see Tarkin again. (obviously)
Chestosneako Inc Divorce is worse.
Not everybody has the same ability to tell the difference between real humans from impostors. Disney will probably be able to replace their screenwriters with next gen chatbots in a few years and only a few will complain.
When I saw the reflection in the glass of the Star Destroyer, I thought, "Hey, it's a character that looks like Tarkin", and then he started talking and I had a major geek-out. Yeah, you could still tell he wasn't human, but the performance had the nuances of Cushing's clipped, uber-cold original acting, the voice was definitely passable, and the thing was done well enough and charmingly enough as a bone to fans, that enough suspension of disbelief to not be cynical about it was easy. This was way better than coming up with a lame reason to not feature Tarkin, or having a character written to replace him.
You want makeup and prosthetics? They already tried that back in Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith. Young Tarkin in that movie was played by Wayne Pygram. Now I just don't get how everyone is complaining about the Tarkin CGI when it is 10 times better than this: vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/5/5b/Young_Tarkin.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20071027053245
...Odo is that you?!
Peter Miller cause people are dumb.
I don’t see why they can’t just use a new actor. It solves the issue of crappy makeup, and the creepy uncanny valley feeling of a CGI face (no matter how well made it might be.)
Sure it means the character will look a little different from the original, but it’s really no different to theatre productions where many actors portray the same character over time, and that never bothers anyone. Much like theatre they can just recast the role to someone who fits the description, in fact the guy who played the stand-in for the CGI Tarkin during filming already looked a lot like him, and they used his voice in the film too. So why bother with CGI?
The way I see it, is that if you don't try it like this first, you don't really push the technology behind it. We kind of need to go through the uncanny valley before we can perfect the art of it
It's actually not. At least with a real human actor, people used to CGI can tell there's actually a person there on screen. Even if he looks different from the original, at least he looks real.
Amazing effects. not going lie tarkin and Leia fooled me. I know I forgot about his death.
If their families didn't have a problem with them being recreated in CGI then no else should have a problem with it as well. End of story!
I thought Leia looked 10x more realistic than Tarkin.
Joel Cardona - I got uncanny valley vibes from Leia as soon as she appeared but for whatever reason hadn't questioned Tarkin at all, maybe because his scenes weren't as brightly lit? idk but I find it interesting how different people react differently to the recreations. Pretty soon they'll have cgi people who're 100% indistinguishable from real actors.
I had no idea Tarkin was CG until after the movie
That's awesome YO! As soon as I saw Tarkin I started geekin out. And every time he popped up on screen ALL 3 times I saw ROGUE ONE I couldn't help but giggle and say with JOY "Fuckin Tarkin"!! The Cgi was Soo great, I honestly couldn't believe how beautiful he looked. I didn't expect to see him in the movie til that "BREATH" teaser a couple weeks before R1 dropped and still wasn't prepared to be blown away by his appearance.
No shit. I hope he's joking.
I do love what they did for each character. As for the ethics of CGI deceased actors? I would say it's a case-by-case basis. Sometimes people will give their approval and sometimes it serves the story and more than just an ad for Twinkies. It honestly depends on "who" and "what."
I had no idea he was CGI, tbh. That was truly phenomenal work.
The answer is the Force
Obi-Wan Kenobi ahhhh General Kenobiii
Amazing job ILM and this was the best Star Wars film since Empire.
I could tell Tarkin and Leia were CGI after just a few seconds, but dang, it still looked so good. Better than the best videogame graphics. There's definitely room for improvement, but I can't see anything topping this for a good 10 years. There is of course the whole 'ethical' question, but I think these are done in good taste. There will have to be some rules set in motion once this kind of thing gets common, though.
say what you want but they did a really good job wig Tarkin
Went to see this with my mother and she had no idea Peter Cushing was cgi. She didn't believe me when I told her he's been dead for more than a few years. While I could tell Tarkin was cgi, young Leia was nearly perfect. Keep raising the bar ILM your hard work is much appreciated. And Tarkin did look amazing.
I am doing cgi myself, and putting cgi faces in shadows or high contrast and dark scenes, or adding grain and putting it far back in 3d space (instead of 20cm away from the camera) really could help sell inperfections etc, but great job ilm
Half the time Tarkin CGI was good, the other half it just looked off. The Leia CGI was pretty bad though. I suppose because it was in a well lit background.
in the theatre i saw it at i didnt even notice Tarkin was animated and i had suspicion princess leia was
it was done real real good.. i think its a tribute to peter cushing.. they should do more of this when its needed
first time seeing Tarkin my response was "wow", I loved it, no issues with me.
People against the "resurrection", stop watching movies then of actors that have passed.. because they're gone.. people had no issue with his appearance in the clone wars animated series... He's part of the star wars universe, and he just like Carrie Fisher, will always remain.
The first movie where I felt the uncanny valley was finally bridged. I believed I was seeing Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher, which is incredible. However, the fact I knew one was dead and the other far older, psychologically made me teeter on the edge of that 'valley' though. I think if nobody knew who these people were, everyone would be praising the CG.
Wait....Disney owns ABC??
Shakheel George Yes and also ESPN I think.
and marvel, the muppets
Deric James yo
Disney owns everything.
If we nail this technique, the prequels can be remade. Make it happen!!
Should have just hired two actors that look like them. It would have been far cheaper and it wouldn't have looked fake.
dude there is no such thing, even if they had! they would need his voice actor too.
diogo santos
How can you say there's no such thing and in the same sentence say the voice actor, Guy Henry, exists. They didn't hire him purely for his voice. A *real* person who looks close enough is better than a CGI creation that doesn't look real.
Close enough is not a standard in professional film making. People tend to want to get immerse with the story and character, and if they hired a "close enough" looking guy to replace the original actor in a previous movie, all you're gonna get is people complaining about why is the person different and ETC. Plus, these kinds of CGI work help push the boundaries of our CG technology. It's good to have challenge and to learn new things to keep progressing anyway.
SethMcFartlane the star wars saga is all about continuity, if tarkin had been a completly different man 2 hours before we again see him in a new hope it would have been far worse than actually recreating him digitally in a very good way
Eugene Miller Yeong
"Close enough is not a standard in professional film making."
It very much is. All the more evident under a video of a "close enough" CGI recreation of an actor. The original Palpatine was played by two different actors in Empire and Jedi. There are tons of examples of different actors playing the same character in different movies. People will get over it quickly. What they won't get over, particularly in a handful of years, is awful CGI. This film will fate as poorly as the effects in the prequels.
18 months of work only to be criticized for the morality of using dead actors. And Carrie Fischer approved their usage of a younger CGI of her too :P
Tarkin and Leia looks INCREDIBLE ! Everyone in the Theater CHEERED when they came out !
And everyone cringed when CRYlo ren took his helmet off
the rebels' CGI is seamless, Carrie Fisher's is pretty good, and Peter Cushing's CGI didn't fool me like the rebels' CGI, but it was a pretty good job. For the type of technology we have currently, this a job well done! :)
necromancers!
I had no clue at all that Tarkin was digital. No clue. I saw the movie and he looked so real, didn't even look "digital" at all. I found out after I saw the movie and looking at these videos here on youtube. But watching it it literally never crossed my mind like "ah yes this is CGI". Very impressive.
It looks great and during the movie in theater where you can't pause or go back to nitpick if you didn't knew he already had died you couldn't tell it's CGI.
I know friends who had no idea the actor had died way back and thought it was a real person.
I didn't tell my wife and kids about Peter Cushing and they did not notice anything strange about him in the film. Personally I think they did a tremendous job, even knowing he's a CGI character. When Leia turned around my kids wondered how they made her young again (because they had seen her in the force awakens). Thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
To quote Darth Vader: ''Impressive. Most impressive.''
Old freinds ...long gone.
Actually thought tarkin was alive watching it for the first time..
A lot of people I know had no idea he was CG. Which is impressive.
Absolutely amazing. After the rubbery faced shit from Tron Legacy I had no idea we were even close to this kind of stuff yet.
Obviously not close enough yet.
Han Solo well since it's a matter of capturing human expressions that's obviously very subjective. some people didn't even know he was a cgi character.
When I saw the young Lea (FIsher) at the end of the movie, all the sudden I was transformed to the summer of 1977. I felt 7 years old again.......for a moment.
No hate but Marvel did it way better with young Robert Downey Jr. and Michael Douglas. Rogue one was still amazing nevertheless.
But they still beat Tron Legacy haha
Beause they used real life RDJ and Douglas in those scenes. Its much more different and difficult when you start from scratch since Peter Cushing is dead.
Jared B Young Jeff Bridges is better than young Johnny Depp in POTC 5.
while this was certainly Impressive, I don't want to see this become normal. Let the dead R.I.P. I'd hate for them to think they can do this with Carry Fisher for Episode IX...I'd rather they change whatever story they have planned and morn Leia's off camera death on film. It would be cathartic...Digital resurrection just seams inappropriate to me. Even with the family's approval, that doesn't mean anything if people are just going to "cash in" on their dead families. (not implying Cushing's family did this, just that others will inevitably) I wouldn't want anyone digitally resurrecting me, putting words into my mouth. It's disrespectful. We are people, not digital effects. A long dead actor once famously said, "We are not machine men, with machine minds'...
All that said. The technology is extremely impressive. From an artistic POV, I can appreciate what they have accomplished.
they probably wont CGI Carrie Fisher in Episode 9 but if they did it would probably just be one scene and the technology would have improved by then
How about the young Arnold in the last Terminator movie fighting the real older Arnold? I thought that was done really well!!
Shawn It was only really done because it was a prequel. Tarkin is 100% absolutely vital to the creation of the Death Star. Not mentioning him would be really unfulfilling for Rogue One. I can see the grey area because he's dead, but his character was very important. I don't see it any different than another actor playing his role. Having another actor would be almost the same thing, as the actor would wear makeup and clothes to seem like Tarkin.
"But before she died, Fisher gave Rogue One a thumbs up." My God the way that sentence was read sounded so disrespectful
Even the still picture of Leia looked fake
Imagining Carrie Fisher watching the final scene and looking at her young self, it's just heart-melting. RIP Carrie Fisher...
I was blown away when I seen them both in the movie, I think they did a fantastic job with the CGI. the only reason some ppl didn't like it and thought the CGI was shit, is because they knew the person is dead or now old so The CGI stood out more. that's what i think
it was nice to see Disney bring back the Chess player from the pixar short
Those who object are idiots. They brought an actor and his character back to life in a film adding to the story where he already appeared. I don't think of this process in this application any different than using prosthetic makeup.
I don't object. I just didn't think it was believable.
I thought it was believable at first, but then after the movie I was like, "Wait, that actor should have died of old age by now, wow, he was totally CGI.
Just a thought since the technology is finally able to recreate this capability. I think it would be a good idea for actors whom are chosen and selected to be given the option of a contract allowing actors to have archival data taken of their faces and any other necessary information with the latest technology so that in the future if the information were needed for a film they could recreate what is needed with whatever superior technology is available at the time. Of course it would all be written out and if the actor agrees then it would be up to the estate to accept the terms and conditions of the such future proposed compensation and filming content so that the proceeds can be given to the estate or whomever is outlined on the contract from which the actor originally signed on.
Don’t Star Wars own the likenesses to these characters? Like every young Obi wan looks like Ewan mcgregor. All Han recreations in video games or toys look like Harrison Ford etc.
It's different when it's a live-action movie with the digital recreation of a dead man. They had to ask permission from Cushing's estate to go forward with the idea.
@@Skulldetta How is it different legally? Have you read every contract the actors signed?
@@IngolfLau I don't think you have. He DED. Even if they had the "right," I don't think they have the MORAL right. they did the right thing by asking first.
Have you read the credits when the movie ends?
No one was dazzled by the cgi on tarkin 😂😂😂😂
IMPORTANT FACT: John Knoll: Inventor of Photoshop :D
I noticed he was CGI but still it's pretty damn close to real life!
Tarkin, Gold Leader, Red Leader and Princess Leia!!! 🙌👏👏👏
Red and gold leader weren't CG. Just used old footage to drop them in there. Fantastic tie in tho!
Jean-Francois Joanisse well, yes, but for me watch Gold and Red Leaders was a fantastic surprise, makes me jump in the cinema!!!!
Also, Pignose and Scott
Pacmanman you mean Evazan and Ponda Babba?
I remember HelloGreedo calling one of them Cornelius. Any truth in that or is it a joke that's lost on me?
I love at the end they just randomly go “and Lukasfilm is owned by Disney who is the parent company of abc” lol
ACTIVATE THE SUBTITLES PLEASE!
↑↑↑
.
execute order 66.
I didn't notice either were CGI, they did a great job.
Best CGI human to date, still a huge fail...
More people complaining about those who are offended than people who are offended.
1:58 what the hell?
Tomtycoon deleted scene maybe?!?
Screen test
6:31 I laughed there for a sec finally knowing why ABC got the interview
I want them to CGI me after I die and put me a Star Wars movie! That would be Awesome!
I felt that Tarkin got better as the movie went along. The first shot of him kept making me think of Spy from TF2 for some reason, but as it went on it became far more natural and the last shot of Tarkin looked full on real. All in all the effect is groundbreaking and ILM are continuing to show us why we trust them with our most beloved franchises. Props to all the CG artists working at ILM. They've officially resurrected the dead.
people from the future i'll tell you we did not think those effects looked good in 2016, don't believe this video!
lesryglrhfohser just stop
lesryglrhfohser this movie won't age well
Prior Tadhg McRae the
In my opinion I was surprised that they resurrected the image of Grand Moff Tarkin and I have to say that I didn't care about the CGI. A real fan shouldn't care what they had to do to bring the character back to life. When I first saw it I let my imagination go through the story and was amazed with it . People have a lot to complain with ohhh the cgi was terrible. or why they had to do that, or they could've just used someone with a mask . Well no it shouldn't matter they did it in their own image and it was brilliant
ILM is really awesome :D
Amazing!
I don't mind actor who died appearing in CGI but this one wasn't that great. It was pretty obvious and bad compared to Westworld or Ant-Mans Michael Douglas.
Valeria Caissa the ones you mentioned had real actors as stand ins. so its not a fair comparison
I do think it's fair, don't forget all the material they have for Cushing, including an actor. Of course it's still better to have the real actors but Douglas and Hopkins changed a lot in all those years.
Valeria Caissa they had a stand in who had to imitate cushing, and they still needed to modify his performance because the guy had different movements. that is not the case when you have a real actor to work with. plus you get to keep the eyes and a lot of other elements. its completely different to what they did in rogue one so i stand by what i said.
Exactly! People insist on comparing these uses of CGI regardless of the huge difference between them. Clearly bringing back an actor ALREADY DEAD is way harder than just applying digital make up over the actual actor while he performs.
Exactly what i thought. It looks good in still images, but you now somethings off when they start moving. They could have easily avoided it by only showing Tarkin from behind with his face visible in the reflection of the windows. In Westworlds flashbacks they didn't show Anthony Hopkins talking and it looked great. I don't understand why Carrie Fisher looked so bad, when they basically did the same thing so much better in Ant-Man.
They warn you about spoilers a minute into the video even though the title already spoils the spoiler
still using shots that didn't make it into the final cut.
Rest In Peace Carrie
"Seamless"
***** Except it's not.
+allluckyseven it is.
If it were... People wouldn't have noticed it is CGI.
allluckyseven If people didn't come into the movie knowing it's CGI, or knew that Cushing is long dead, they surely wouldn't notice.
The Zant General
The X-wing fighters that were added from deleted scenes of the original movie still look real because they act like real people. Tarkin in RO doesn't. He barely moves. If you compare him in RO against the real Tarkin in ANH, you'll see a huge difference in performance. His model can be very accurate, but the animation isn't lifelike.
Loved it!
I had preferred to see just Guy Henry in makeup, honestly.
I guess it's all a matter of opinion. I greatly preferred the CGI version.
james wasda the eyes were just a bit off
Gabriele Riva This takes place just before ANH. Having a different actor wouldn't make sense.
Joe Kerr
Suspension of disbelief. Hundreds of characters had different actors, nobody ever was hurt fo rthat.
Gabriele Riva Yeah, but the prequels took place decades before the OT.
Они так рассказывают, будто разницы никто не увидел. Этот компьютерный персонаже режет глаза, ничего у них не вышло. Получился фотографичный, НО искусственный образ.
Makeup and cosmetics probably would have looked better.
JackWolf not really the episode 3 tarkin looked pretty bad..
JackWolf and while they can do great with creatures, when they do humans they are fine and great until they open there mouth than something can start looking off
pretty sure Tarkin in Rots is cg
Nope just found a person that looked similar and didn't show his face fully
JackWolf No,it wouldn't
where they fucked up was making it fully digital...they should have blended the eyes and mouth, 2 crucial parts that are give-aways....eyes and mouth of the original actor, with some added cheekbone would have been enough...
The exhilarating experience of seeing Peter Cushing brought back to life is to me the absolute definition of "movie magic." It was astonishing to the point that it was a little scary. Resurrecting these characters with such incredible precision was essential to tying Rogue One into the larger story. The technique seems to have limited acceptable use so it's probably a good thing that it is so difficult and time-consuming to accomplish.