SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Disney has issued a statement regarding the rumors of CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) being used to continue Carrie Fisher's roles in any upcoming movies:
We want to assure our fans that Lucasfilm has no plans to digitally recreate Carrie Fisher's performance as Princess or General Leia Organa.
Of course that would be after they already recreated her as young Princess Leia in Rogue One. I'm kinda torn because I found nothing funnier than her CGI face in that movie. Moff Tarkin was done quite well, but Leia looked like she had several strong psychedelic edibles and a glorious bowel movement just 2 minutes before.
Assuming that they could do it better, who is for recreating our favorite characters with CGI?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Disney to Stop Using CGI for Carrie Fisher, aka Princess Leia Organa
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 54 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?
(Score: 2) by rob_on_earth on Tuesday January 24 2017, @04:28PM
Funny I was think the opposite. Moff Tarkin looked like he was an extra from Polar Express and Leia looked almost perfect, though the effect did wear off.
Why was Moff Tarkin so bad? It was as if they ran out of money.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:29PM
I find it interesting the different takes people had. I, personally, found both ghastly. Leia was like a circus mirror -- she just looked warped. And Tarkin was solidly in the uncanney valley for me. Both characters took me completely out of the movie. Between the two, I'd say Leia was far worse -- she had what 10 seconds of screen time to Tarkins 100+? Neither character had to be in the movie... or for more dramatic effect both could have had cameos from the back or something.
It was as much the fact that I *knew* they couldn't be there that ruined it. Layer on the fact that I think they *shouldn't* have tried to cast or CGI them into the film. Even if they'd done it perfectly, it still would have been jarring and unpleasant because it triggered a "this is just wrong" response that was distracting.
It a crappy clickbait article but near the bottom they have the cgi still from the new movie, with a still from a new hope just below it. Look at them both ... side by side the two leia's aren't even close... I can't believe you'd say it was almost perfect.
http://www.dorkly.com/post/81890/8-questions-we-still-have-about-star-wars-rogue-one&c=13959081677996649351&mkt=en-gb [dorkly.com]
There's also a side by side of real and fake tarkin. Fake tarkin looks closer IMO, but still in the uncanny valley.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mechanicjay on Tuesday January 24 2017, @06:00PM
I thought they were ghastly as well. I would have been very happy to have a different actor play Tarkin -- much like the actress who has played Mon Mothma for the last couple films -- she's great!
Leia was just unnecessary. From a plot perspective having the Tantive IV in the hold of the Mon Cal ship seemed really ham-fisted to me. They could have just shown her back, in the robes -- everyone knew who the hell it was, no need to ruin the moment with a bloated CG character.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 1) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:16PM
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:38PM
Only if his assistant was wrapped in tight leather. Either gender is fine.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @02:27AM
They didn't need to show a close-up of Carrie. There would be less risk if they had shown her from a bit of a distance.
But knowing it's (partial) CGI probably made people pay more attention than they would have otherwise. You start focusing on realism or lack of if you know, and the power of suggestion can play with your mind.
It's like pointing out somebody is (allegedly) a cross-dresser: you start to notice things you didn't notice before, or at least become more conscience of certain things.
That's not necessarily the fault of the CGI crew, just a side-effect of the attention from using CGI to recreate actors who have passed away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @03:59AM
My hobby: saying that random women are cross-dressers.
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:28AM
They didn't need to show a close-up of Carrie. There would be less risk if they had shown her from a bit of a distance.
They didn’t spend a fuckton of money on CGI not to use it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday January 24 2017, @06:41PM
Why was Moff Tarkin so bad?
What jarred for me was recognising the actor under the "mask" (by his voice) and seeing his facial expressions, which are quite recognisable as well (he plays a somewhat eccentric main character in a popular weekly drama on BBC One).
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:47PM
I thought the same thing...
Leia was "acceptable" looking, Tarkin looked like a CGI character from a Blizzard cutscene!
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:49PM
Both were a little odd for me. Tarkin reminded me of Dobby the house elf except that with Dobby I was able to suspend my disbelief as house elves aren't real. With Leia the way her face turned into view seem almost like it was sliding around or something just a bit unnatural in the movement.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @09:21PM
Depends what you mean by perfect. She looked like an actual person, but she had some sort of vibe like she was some other person. But, definitely the better one.
The Grand Moff Tarkin they featured was terrible, not necessarily because the CG effects, but the acting. The original character had a very somber look to him through the whole film. He didn't have much affect and brang a great deal of weight to the roll. The new actor they had under the CG was downright cartoonish and zany. Something that was completely wrong for the role. And to make matters worse, they gave too much screen time to him, so you had a lot of time to take notice of the dead guy acting.