Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the contains-no-artificial-organas dept.

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by EvilSS on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:00PM

    by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:00PM (#458143)
    I think that might be an intermediate step but honestly I think the end game, and we are talking probably another 30-50 years, will be movie making like video games are made today. Artists craft virtual "actors" for individual roles and the entire thing is CGI and no one can really tell the difference. Then of course there will be a live action revival because nostalgia but overall dropping the humans would save hundreds of millions of dollars. We will eventually conquer the uncanny valley and the next big hurdle, artificial voices. It's just a matter of time, research, and computing power. As the prices come down it will become more affordable to not use real actors. No actors means no physical sets, so no crews either. Just the back of the camera creatives (writers, directors, etc). I think at first it will be famous real-life actors during the transition but eventually they will just be based on the aesthetic the role calls for, and not on a living person.

    And no, I'm not saying this is necessary a good thing, although it would eventually open up movie and TV making to nearly everyone as costs drop over time. That could be interesting.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:21PM

    by jdavidb (5690) on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:21PM (#458155) Homepage Journal

    although it would eventually open up movie and TV making to nearly everyone as costs drop over time.

    I can remember standing in a Babbage's software store in the mall in the 1980s hoping that someday my children or grandchildren could make Star Wars episodes I-III and episodes VII-IX using computer generated imagery and voices that would look just like the original actors. I was hoping this would be something that people could literally do at home just for fun. We may be heading for a world like that.

    --
    ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:50PM (#458169)

      I can remember standing in a Babbage's software store in the mall in the 1980s hoping that someday my children or grandchildren could make Star Wars episodes I-III and episodes VII-IX using computer generated imagery and voices that would look just like the original actors. I was hoping this would be something that people could literally do at home just for fun. We may be heading for a world like that.

      No, we aren't. From the technical possibilities, we might reach that stage. But the copyright industry will make sure that the laws against this are in full force, and probably all creation software will come with automatic filters which disallow creating anything that builds on the old works, including quite a few things that are not actually infringing, but are misidentified by the software as such. Circumventing those measures will be a crime, even if you do it for creation of non-infringing stuff.

    • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:54PM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:54PM (#458173)
      ah Babbage's. I spent many hours there as a kid "window shopping".
  • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:23PM

    by JNCF (4317) on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:23PM (#458159) Journal

    although it would eventually open up movie and TV making to nearly everyone as costs drop over time. That could be interesting.

    Yeah, the unlicensed Elseworldish fan films will be fun. I wouldn't mind seeing Rick Blaine and Captain Renault join the Inglorious Basterds.

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:06PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:06PM (#458288) Journal

    I think this idea could be extended from completely virtual actors to develop virtual audiences as well.

    On a different note. In the mid 80's there was a movie called "Looker". It was a (for then and now) slightly futuristic world where actors could be computer simulations. Of course, they thought you would still need physical backgrounds like sets, furniture, etc which we know are easier to simulate than humans. (Spoilers . . .) The company behind this starts killing off all beautiful actresses (but not hot dude actors?) to increase demand for the company's services. They also develop a technology that embeds a signal in the visual image to hypnotize the viewers. The good guys discover that a politician is using this to get everyone to vote for him. (Yes, really) Of course, the good guys win and the evil plan is exposed.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.