Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday August 27 2015, @08:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the will-they-screw-it-up-again dept.

Disney and LucasFilms will reportedly use computer generated imagery to digitally recreate Grand Moff Tarkin, the character Peter Cushing played in Star Wars back in 1977. Cushing died at age 81 in 1994:

A source told the Daily Mail that Disney and LucasFilms are using CGI to bring Grand Moff Tarkin back to life for the spin-off film which is centred on a back story about Darth Vader.

Cushing starred in many of the Hammer Horror films with Christopher Lee, including Dracula and Dr Frankenstein. He also appeared in two Doctor Who films, based on the BBC sci-fi series.

CGI technicians have been particularly challenged in recreating his legs and feet, because they never appeared on camera in the original film. As his character was a Galactic Imperial officer, his uniform included tight riding boots, which Cushing complained were uncomfortable. So director George Lucas gave him permission to wear slippers and instructed the camera operators to only film him from above the knees. Original footage is vital in the process of computer generating real people, to ensure that it appears as accurate as possible.

With the power of CGI, Tarkin/Cushing can be made to leap over railings, dodge blaster fire in mid-air, and high five Jar Jar Binks.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 27 2015, @08:37PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 27 2015, @08:37PM (#228717) Journal

    With the power of CGI, Tarkin/Cushing can be made to leap over railings, dodge blaster fire in mid-air, and high five Jar Jar Binks.

    Wrong and evil. But... feasible, therefore I'll have yet another thing to ignore in this world.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:35PM

    by Gravis (4596) on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:35PM (#228731)

    Wrong and evil. But... feasible, therefore I'll have yet another thing to ignore in this world.

    don't be too hasty. after all, ol' George is out of the picture now and they have written completely new material specifically for the movie. Ol' George didn't care about the money, so making a good film wasn't really what he was interested in. Disney on the other hand would drown puppies and kittens if people would pay to see it. I expect that this star wars will actually be a decent to good movie as opposed to the shit that was Episode I/II/III.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:44PM (#228735)

      If your standard for "good movie" is "people would pay to see it" then how exactly are you morally superior to the kitten-drowning puppy-killers at Disney?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:54PM (#228741)
      I admire you: past a certain age but still maintaining a bit of the childhood naivety.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:00PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:00PM (#228750) Journal

      Disney on the other hand would drown puppies and kittens if people could be tricked into paying to see it.

      FTFY - you can call me a bitter old geezer if you like.
      Reasoning: the advertising budget stays pretty much the same no matter the quality of the movie, except markedroids are cheaper and less fussy than a good director.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Friday August 28 2015, @01:12PM

        by Gravis (4596) on Friday August 28 2015, @01:12PM (#228964)

        Reasoning: the advertising budget stays pretty much the same no matter the quality of the movie, except markedroids are cheaper and less fussy than a good director.

        not a fan of J. J. Abrams?

  • (Score: 1) by kazzie on Friday August 28 2015, @07:06AM

    by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 28 2015, @07:06AM (#228872)

    With the power of CGI, Tarkin/Cushing can be made to leap over railings and fire a blaster at Jar Jar Binks.

    There, fixed that for you.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @09:02AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @09:02AM (#228900)

      Didn't you know that the only way to reliably kill Jar Jar Binks is to high five him?

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by MrNemesis on Friday August 28 2015, @11:00AM

      by MrNemesis (1582) on Friday August 28 2015, @11:00AM (#228928)

      Well thanks for the spoiler alert, now I know that Tarkin is actually one of the good guys!

      --
      "To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @12:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @12:35PM (#228951)

    Sadly, you're right. Tarkin was my favorite character from the original Star Trek because he was the only one who didn't need a weapon. He had other people to do things for him. That's power. It's like cell phones: they're "cool" like lightsabers and blasters are cool, and people seem to feel powerful when they talk on them in public, but people with real power don't carry them, because they have other people who answer the phone for them.

    Oddly, in the original series of toys produced, Tarken came with a blaster. That disappointed me.