SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
With Tuesday's tragic passing of actor and writer Carrie Fisher came a major question from fans of the Star Wars series: what will happen to the ongoing trilogy films, which (so far) feature both the original trilogy characters of Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa Solo?
Reports from Variety and Deadline have confirmed that filming of Fisher's performance in the upcoming Star Wars: Episode VIII film wrapped earlier this year, with both articles citing unnamed sources. Deadline's report goes one further by indicating that Leia has a "larger role" in the upcoming film, and while it also mentions Fisher's real-life daughter, Billie Lourd, appearing in Episode VIII, there's no indication of how much screen time Lourd will receive or whether she and Fisher will interact meaningfully in the film. (Lourd appeared ever-so-briefly in The Force Awakens, but she has teased a larger appearance in a future film.)
Seeing as how the Star Wars and Disney teams rarely disclose plot details ahead of time, it should surprise no one that announcements or hints haven't been offered for how either Episode VIII or Episode IX will change in the wake of Fisher's passing or whether dialogue or other important content may have already been pre-recorded by any actors in the case of an emergency. That being said, Fisher had signed on for some kind of role in Episode IX. Does that mean she would have had an active role in the final leg of the new trilogy? It's hard to say; after all, Harrison Ford may very well be returning to Episode VIII, if this casting-call announcement from late 2015 is legitimate. I won't spell out my logic here, in case you avoided my spoiler warning, but with all of that information in mind, Fisher's Episode VIII performance could, er, conclude similarly to how Ford's ended in Episode VII.
In related news, Disney took out an insurance policy against Fisher's ability to complete her contract. This is a standard industry practice. Now Disney stands to get a $50,000,000 payout due to her death.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @05:48AM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @05:54AM
I found both of those CGI characters a bit disturbing, uncanny valley is still here folks! Not sure what I think about the valley disappearing.... truth and news will truly become fluid, though it has all been so bastardized already I don't know if there will be much difference.
I can only hope that it will spur some new methods / requirements of authenticity and journalistic integrity. Maybe star journalists will be the ones who have survived the longest without promoting bullshit. Fucking humanity, our very ingenuity is our downfall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:18AM
Is lack of sufficient quantities of light/depth sensors to match rendered scenes or characters to their green-screened or shopped in counterparts.
As soon as they can do that (or the tech reached Hollywood, rather than just used for grainy videos to convict people/start wars) the line between fantasy and reality will be finished, at least within the realms of the 2d screen (and 3d VR goggles not long thereafter.)
(Score: 2) by blackhawk on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:04PM
That shouldn't really be an issue since it's not too difficult to match up the lighting used on the green screen set with that in a computer rendering. It might be harder on an actual set where reflections start to play a part in the scene.
Problem is really the uncanny valley. The Peter Cushing model seemed rushed. The skin wasn't properly rendered and it didn't even look like they used a proper facial animation capture rig or motion capture for his body movement. He seemed very stiff, like you get if he's animated by hand.
They may well have used both a facial capture rig and motion capture, but if they did, it didn't show in the final product. Artists would have had to put together his face by hand modelling as well, and that just isn't a patch on the new facial capture system in use now.
For example: http://www.3lateral.com/ [3lateral.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:21AM
Star journalists will be bloggers, and just like rockstar coders, they will be completely full of bullshit.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:25AM
Can I stick my penis in your juicy, tight anus?
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:32PM
Star journalists will be bloggers, and just like rockstar coders, they will be completely full of bullshit.
Star 'journalists' have been on AM talk radio for decades. Now get off my lawn!
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:32AM
Live streaming will allow "integrity" to last for another few years, since it's harder to digitally fake in real time.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:56PM
disturbing, uncanny valley
I know a guy who knows a guy, etc, and I got to see Rogue One at the premier very first showing, in 3d. Nothing says disturbing uncanny valley like 3d and yet it still sells. Maybe he looks a lot worse in non-3d. I liked the movie other than the 3-d added nothing but blurriness and distraction and I want to actually see it again not in 3d. Maybe in non-3d the uncanny valley is worse with Mr Cushing, but in the 3d version he's definitely less uncanny than the 3-d effects before and after his scenes. I didn't get freaked out about him until I realized he was dead and this isn't rehashed historical footage... or is it?
Some make fun of the CGI Cushing because he appears to be a stiff old military man rather than like Yoda in a lightsaber battle, but it fits the character and scene, so what exactly is the problem? That would imply CGI Leia is probably going to appear in a rather static scene or a memory sequence not so much a ballet or interpretive dance scene. Or worse, a sex scene. Or probably worse. I'm not sure. You think her and Jabba ever...
Star Wars has some weird relationship to death. See at the end of the first movie most of the characters were alive so that movie revolutionized kids toy marketing and sales were insane for a decade or two. The problem with Rogue One is everyone died, so its going to be harder to sell to kids. So you sell a kid a Luke and he can pretend to fight later battles because he's still alive but sell a kid the cool monk guy and all a kid can do to play out is shoot him with a bb gun or microwave him to emulate the end of the battle or maybe hold a mock funeral? Aside from the issue that you could take a little kid to ANH and it would be OK but Rogue One was basically Saving Private Ryan in star wars cosplay with a little less gore but they all end up just as dead.
I was at the very first public showing so it wasn't official yet that it was a horror story where absolutely every dies, so the experience of seeing it and not knowing they'd all die is different than someone seeing it today and going into the theater knowing everyone they see dies within two hours and you're just waiting to see how and why each croaks.
Also even while sitting in the theater watching, even while being entertained, I'm thinking no, you didn't just "nuke it from orbit, just to be sure" not once but twice, really? Really? I mean its not as bad of a sin as jar jar or the ewoks, but bad taste in pop culture never stopped star wars before, so ...
When you combine the weird attitude toward memes in the series, and the weird attitudes toward death, and 3d gimmicks, I don't think the biggest problem is going to be old gray hair fans complaining about Leia actually being dead CGI. It won't be a major problem.
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Friday January 06 2017, @03:40AM
I had a choice so I saw the film in 2D, and I spent the entire film wondering just how in the hell did they manage to get someone who looked exactly like Tarkin did in a ANH. It wasn't until after the film that I found out he was actually CGI. So they had me fooled, but then again maybe I just didn't pick up things like that easily. Perhaps he's actually more fake looking in the fake 3D thing. Though in Tarkin's case being a bit stiff was in character which probably helped them pull it off. I'll have to give his scenes a more critical eye when I watch the movie again. I will say Leia's brief scene was a bit less convincing, though it was short enough that I wasn't sure if it was CGI or about 10 pounds of makeup.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday January 06 2017, @12:05PM
I admit while watching it I thought to myself "I can't believe there's this much high quality lost footage from ANH".
I suppose a logical extension from conceptual sequels is in a decade or two we're gonna have to sit thru CGI character sequels. So expect 1970s buck rogers and 1970s battlestar galactica remakes.
Also imagine the mashup possibilities. The Hoff from the 80s starring in a 1960s TOS star trek episode.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday January 04 2017, @04:04PM
I don’t see how resurrecting her for Episode VIII and IX is so impossible.
One rather interesting point to make is I don't see the link between 10/10 bikini Leia and the Episode VII Leia so one way to handle the problem is instead of digitally replicating 60 year old Leia they can just adjust the setting to be "... five years later ..." and pick a random 70 year old woman and call her Leia. Now it would "wow" the super fans if 70 year old Leia were Carrie Fischer's daughter with massive special effects and makeup, but its not technically necessary.
They had to have young digital Leia in Rogue One because that movie ends about ten seconds before A New Hope begins, but there's no need for 7 and 8 to be adjacent any more than 1 and 2 were or 2 and 3 were. Or 3 and 4 for that matter, LOL.