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?
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Tuesday January 24 2017, @06:00PM
I liked Carrie Fisher in Rogue One. I thought it was very well done, particularly how the avoided showing her face until the very end.
The CGI to do it had advanced incredibly. I most definitely did not think it was CGI. I was sure they got a double (who was slightly more chubby) to do it.
So long as they get permission from her family, I would have no problem with it. (On the other hand, I can see fans wanting to set limits to make sure her family doesn't sell her likeness to hundreds of movies in the future.)
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:44PM
I most definitely did not think it was CGI.
Wow... just wow. Whereas I was shocked at just how bad it was... that i immediately knew it was CGI, and that it looked completely wrong. Like someone had animated an air brushed a corpse of someone who didn't quite look like Leia.
So long as they get permission from her family
Be interesting to see the screen actors guilds take on it. Not sure they'd want to devalue living working actors to just be standins for long dead ones. And as soon as this is mainstream, it won't be the permission from the family... Disney will just buy and own the rights to actors likenesses from the families estates. And then hoard them forever. Maybe then a studio goes bankrupt and a porn company picks up the likeness rights... or why wait... they'll just get dumb drunk girls to sell them for a free t-shirt, thong and the promise of fame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @09:14PM
I thought it was an image from the original movie, maybe a little processed to highlight her then-youthful looks.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday January 24 2017, @09:29PM
Have you seen them side by side? She looks youthful and vibrant in A New Hope. She looks airbrushed and plastic in Rogue One.
Lousy article, but has a still from each at the bottom... the differences are STARK...
http://www.dorkly.com/post/81890/8-questions-we-still-have-about-star-wars-rogue-one [dorkly.com]
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday January 25 2017, @11:33AM
I haven't seen Rogue One yet, but I also don't really understand the problem. Actors are not characters. On the stage, it's the norm for different actors to play the same character and it's not even that unusual in film. If an actor can't do the film, for whatever reason, then you can either cast someone or something else or remove the character. If the character is central to the plot, then you do the story a disservice by dropping them. If a CGI image of the actor is less jarring to the audience than a completely new actor, then why not use it instead?
For me, the only real questions are: Is the CGI up to the job, or would they be better off casting a new actor and does Leia still matter for the stories that they want to tell in the Star Wars universe?
sudo mod me up