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
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @08:20PM
Say moo you cow while I ram my big bull cock into you. Moooooooooooooo. Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Take it, you cow!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 27 2015, @08:37PM
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
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:35PM
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
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
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Friday August 28 2015, @12:47AM
There's no such thing as an absolute.
...Wait, shit.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:00PM
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
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
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
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
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
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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday August 27 2015, @08:45PM
“Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2, Interesting) by SunTzuWarmaster on Thursday August 27 2015, @08:55PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:00PM
I could be wrong, but wasn't there a scene at the very end of Episode III that had an Imperial officer walking away from Vader that was supposed to be Tarkin? OK, I'll turn in my geek card now....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:03PM
Yeap, there was indeed
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:42PM
Yes, it was supposed to be Tarkin, but it was actually actor Wayne Pygram (best known to international audiences as Scorpius in Farscape) under prosthetics that just made him look like... a guy with prosthetics on his face. He looked more like the lovechild of Scorpius and Odo from DS9.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:06PM
"CGI technicians have been particularly challenged in recreating his legs and feet, because they never appeared on camera in the original film."
Seriously?!
A fictional character that appears briefly in a movie needs super accurate renderings of his feet (that never appeared in the movie) and would have been covered in generic boots anyway?
Because just picking appropriate boots and going with it would not suffice? Because they are not just going to mo cap an actor for movement anyway?
Sounds like a load of complete marketing BS.
(Score: 5, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:12PM
God, can't you just be pandered to in exchange for money like a good little nerd?
There's some poor sap in a PR department reviewing all the boring crap Disney employees are doing to see what might trick you into seeing Star Wars again after the last 3 excretions if it were presented as "cool" enough. Jeez, it's like you have no respect at all for your position as an adult in a juicy demographic.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:44PM
If you have accepted me as your god (as is only fitting) then I am demanding tribute: 10% tithe.
And unlike the other ones I will actually answer your questions for that...
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:10PM
Yes, Lorde. I want to join your Team.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @02:40AM
I find your ideas intriguing and I would be interested in your pamphlet.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday August 28 2015, @05:40AM
We accept COD.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @06:21AM
You mean tablets [youtube.com].
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Friday August 28 2015, @01:14AM
I have a desire to see some photoshopped screen grabs that show what Moff Tarkin's legs really look like.
I'm thinking he has Big Bird legs.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Friday August 28 2015, @02:53PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday August 27 2015, @09:59PM
Cushing starred in many of the Hammer Horror films with Christopher Lee, including Dracula and Dr Frankenstein
He played Frankenstein a few times, but there's no film called "Dr Frankenstein." Presumably the writer meant The Curse of Frankenstein, which Cushing and Lee were both in.
He also appeared in two Doctor Who films, based on the BBC sci-fi series.
Some fans call those the "Dr. Who" films. Doctor Who is the title of the BBC series, but not the name of the alien protagonist, whereas Dr. Who is the name of the (human) character Peter Cushing played in the two movies.
A source told the Daily Mail
Ah. Suddenly all is explained.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:31PM
Boooo! Booo!
Not cool, man. Not cool. Why didn't they just let Wayne Pygram reprise the role from Episode III?
(Score: 1) by OwMyBrain on Friday August 28 2015, @01:45PM
Wow. I didn't actually know Wayne Pygram was in Episode III, but IMDB confirms it. I fondly remember Pygram for portraying Scorpius in Farscape.
I saw Revenge of the Sith exactly once when it was in the theater, so my memory of it is fuzzy. I don't remember a young Tarkin being in it, but that seems likely what with all the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge - you know what happens in Episode IV" nonsense from that movie. I'm afraid I must admit I have to agree with this AC. I would much rather see an underappreciated sci-fi actor reprise the role than yet another CGI stunt. I was cautiously optimistic about what Disney would do to the Star Wars universe, but now I am quite a bit more worried. Stop just throwing technology at movies and remember how to do good story telling. Wait, was Disney ever good at story telling?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @08:17PM
Wait, was Disney ever good at story telling?
They are excellent at story telling. They absolutely suck at story creating as they cannot do it without blatantly plagiarizing the non-copyrighted (read:Pre-Disney) past.
(Score: 2) by f4r on Thursday August 27 2015, @10:50PM
Do not use as directed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @12:15AM
Hell use one of the other movies he was in... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001088 [imdb.com] Or one of the thousands of publicity shots he probably did for those same movies....
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 28 2015, @12:29AM
Yes, but how would those feet look when squashed into tight riding boots?
I mean, if you're a minion of a pawn in a cast of tens of thousands of technicians assigned to a portion of a detail, what else do you have to justify your name in the credits roll if you aren't going for the absolute epitome of trivia inspiring detail?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday August 28 2015, @03:56AM
This is *Star Wars*, people. They'll just have to exhume him.
(Score: 1) by VanderDecken on Thursday August 27 2015, @11:04PM
Well, *that* will be a weird IMDB entry for Mr. Cushing.
The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pinchy on Thursday August 27 2015, @11:13PM
Pretty soon the actors wont have jobs anymore hehe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @01:07AM
It would be an improvement for some lame actors, like Tom woosie Cruise.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Friday August 28 2015, @03:03AM
Okay I stepped a little outside the bounds of performances there, but yeah, automation's not killing acting.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Friday August 28 2015, @08:27AM
I bet they are keeping all the raw motion cap info. (Or, if not now, then soon). Then, when the software gets good enough, you will be able to create a movie by giving the computer a script and a motion cap library.
It will give you a list of scenes/actions it doesn't have yet, which you will motion cap (using cheap actors/stunt people) and add to the library.
At the same time the programs will be getting better at extrapolating and modifying so you will need less and less of this.
Eventually, no jobs for actors, while all the dead greats from the past star in movie after movie.
The hard part, for a while, will be getting believable voices.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Friday August 28 2015, @02:51PM
Even if a magic 'give me a realistic mocap stitch' button ever did exist, that still only accounts for a portion of what you see in a scene. No, acting will never be obsolete, just like cameras failed to make painting obsolete.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday August 29 2015, @08:04AM
Currently, it is all human controlled, computer assisted. You're right that they will need actors for a while.
But what about when you start applying Watson level semantic understanding to the computers? Movie budgets of hundreds of megabucks allow for that.
Options like;
- have the computer create mo-cap from past film. If it gets smart enough, it won't need the ping-pong balls.
- Even before that, have Amazons mechanical turk apply virtual ping-pong balls to existing existing film - Mo-Cap of Fred and Ginger dancing!
... and the tools to modify them have never been better.
But they will never be worse than they are now, and the libraries will never be smaller.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday August 29 2015, @05:24PM
If you really think computers will ever be able to do what will draw people to see a show try watching Whose Line is it Anyway some time.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Thursday August 27 2015, @11:24PM
Yoda and Jabba connected with audiences because they were REAL. But the CGI versions were ... Meh. And don't get me started on Jar Jar.
I know the tech has come a long way...but it's still just flat. Physical effects for almost everything worked great for the original trilogy. CGI for almost everything turned the second trilogy into a flaming turd destroyer.
PLEASE no unnecessary CGI in the third set. Please? If it is needful and cannot be done physically, then ok. If not, then scrap it
Evidence: what scene really resonates with you from the second trilogy? For me it's the immolation and repair of Anakin. How much computer there? Hardly ever. And that's even with Hayden Christiansen as the lead actor.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27 2015, @11:54PM
Perhaps you should watch "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" before condemning CGI. 99% of the movie is CGI that is 11+ year old technology, the remaining 1% is the actors in front of a green screen.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 28 2015, @12:50AM
I don't remember the plot of that movie at all, just the gloss.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday August 28 2015, @10:35AM
"Obviously it’s star wars and there are going to be thousands of CG shots in this movie, but it was really important to us that wherever it didn’t need to be, it wasn’t. It’s incredible how much gets sort pushed off to solve later. We’ll shoot it on blue and figure it out later. We’ll shoot it on green and we’ll make this up later. It was really important for a sense of authenticity that the set be built, the exterior, interior, that we go to real locations that were actually in the sun.
I know it sounds silly, but in the behind the scenes reel you see this giant gimbal of the Millennium Falcon cockpit and it was outdoors. The reason we did it – we didn’t have to do that, but the reason we wanted to was, you just can’t fake sunlight. You can do a pretty good imitation, but you can just tell. There was something about wanting to see Daisy’s character actually sitting in the cockpit with sunlight streaking across in motion. It’s a little detail and I’m not sure anyone’s going to care abut that, but it’s an incredible thing when you see it just how much better it looks because it’s real. So we just tried to do that as much as we could and it was often challenging but it was worth it."
from http://collider.com/star-wars-7-j-j-abrams-on-captain-phasma-colin-trevorrow-and-more/ [collider.com]
I feel positively optimistic that JJ will try to keep as much practical effects as are practical (har har) in the making of the movie.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by OwMyBrain on Friday August 28 2015, @01:52PM
Yoda and Jabba connected with audiences because they were REAL. But the CGI versions were ... Meh. And don't get me started on Jar Jar.
Yeah. CGI characters are never good. That's why everyone hated Gollum.
(Score: 2) by Username on Friday August 28 2015, @11:01AM
Does his living relatives get paid or does Disney think they own the rights to his likeness?
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Friday August 28 2015, @04:52PM
Why would his relatives deserve to be paid?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @06:51PM
Not necessarily relatives, but probably. If payment is due as a result of Disney's commercial use of his likeness, then the payment is due to his estate, which would pass it on to his legal heirs, which are usually relatives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 28 2015, @11:22AM
Hey guys, I've got this great idea... you know this dead guy? If we can digitally recreate him, we don't have to deal with paying him anything! He won't be asking for any of his cut of the merchandising so we can keep that money for ourselves! Because we're greedy fucking bastards!