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?
Related Stories
University of Edinburgh have used machine learning to animate human characters:
Researchers from the University of Edinburgh have developed a novel learning framework called a Phase-Functioned Neural Network (PFNN) that uses machine learning for character animation and other applications. Daniel Holden, a researcher at Ubisoft Montreal and lead researcher on this project, described PFNN as:
A learning framework that is suitable for generating cyclic behavior such as human locomotion. We also design the input and output parameters of the network for real-time data-driven character control in complex environments with detailed user interaction. Despite its compact structure, the network can learn from a large, high dimensional dataset thanks to a phase function that varies smoothly over time to produce a large variation of network configurations. We also propose a framework to produce additional data for training the PFNN where the human locomotion and the environmental geometry are coupled. Once trained our system is fast, requires little memory, and produces high quality motion without exhibiting any of the common artefacts found in existing methods.
Holden went on to say that, once trained, PFNN is extremely fast and compact, requiring only milliseconds of execution time and a few megabytes of memory, even when trained on gigabytes of motion data.
If this software can allow fewer people to create more complicated animations with less resources, it could be another step away from Hollywood. A single person with a computer could animate dead actors using software and source material (and create a soundtrack while they're at it). "Sets" can be created virtually. Personality rights laws can be circumvented by distributing amateur/fan films using the same avenues used for piracy (streaming, torrents, sneakernet, etc.), leading to a loss of control over the portrayal of living and dead actors.
Additional coverage can be found on ArsTechnica.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:54PM
Dead actors are dead, period.
(Score: 5, Touché) by EvilSS on Tuesday January 24 2017, @04:03PM
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday January 24 2017, @04:44PM
Perhaps the question we should ask is who owns their likeness. They can clearly recreate them, sometimes with a bit of mixed results but still. Famous actors might start selling their youthful likeness to cash in before they fade into oblivion. An extra form of revenue. Possibly also for media companies. They can take beloved figures and whore them out for products without the need for actual pesky actors and all their demands.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by EvilSS on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:00PM
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.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:21PM
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
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
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:23PM
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
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.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 2) by Uncle_Al on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:18PM
There was a pretty famous case where Leonard Nemoy sued Paramont for licensing his Spock character without paying him royalties.
From a biography, this started when he was in London and discovered his image was all over the place
http://www.anatomised.com/raising-a-glass-to-leonard-nimoy/ [anatomised.com]
That was the hangup with him joining the cast of the original Star Trek movie.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:11PM
Could it be that Leonard Nimoy's image might be about publicity rights rather than the Spock character? Nimoy probably did not own any interest whatsoever in the Spock character. But "publicity rights" might have existed at the time. I would think everything else, scripts, characters, names, designs, everything is owned by the producer who is putting up the money.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @07:15PM
Given that contemporary actors act with the same intensity of a goldfish anyway, computer generated ones are an equally lame alternative.
If you want to see actors, dump your blueray and fetch silent movies off of youtube.
(Score: 2) by fubari on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:13PM
True, next thing you know they'll want to bring JarJar back from the grave.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:13PM
Meesa thinks a weesa should give the president* emergency powers.
*chancellor
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 2) by fubari on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:25PM
nice :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @03:53AM
Darth Binks... the true Sith master.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 24 2017, @03:56PM
Please do not recreate deceased actors using CGI. This is disrespectful.
Instead, do it using an "uncanny valley" sort of robot that reproduces the actor's motor performances to give the new performance in a new film project. That would be much less respectful, and thus more in the way Disney way of doing it.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:00PM
You say this, and it is an ongoing joke (with much historical truth) that Disney takes existing culture and completely bastardizes it. However, in the past 5-10 years, is that still the case?
More recent examples include "Tangled" and "Frozen." However, they have changed the name and only use the source material as inspiration. No child is going to think that the true story of "Rapunzel" is the Disney version (unlike movies like "Beauty and the Beast" and "Cinderella"), and they make no secret that this is the source of the inspiration.
While Disney may be a cultural leech, continually sucking profit from what should morally now be commons, in recent years they have definitely been respectful. Just compare "Force Awakens" against the "Hans only returned fire" of the Star Wars franchise.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:45PM
Indeed, episode VII shows the utmost respect for the ideals, plots, and subplots of episode IV.
Hans Gruber definitely shot first.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 24 2017, @06:24PM
So what you're saying is that we should dig her up and use the clearly superior technology of animatronics.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:16PM
I hadn't thought of that, but it would be even MORE disrespectful than my idea was. So write a letter to Disney.
Young people won't believe you if you say you used to get Netflix by US Postal Mail.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 25 2017, @12:11AM
Wow, really? You think digging up Carrie Fisher's corpse, duct-taping her to some sort of animatronic robot, and operating her like a puppet is a MORE disrespectful option.
Huh! Well.....nevermind then. Please unsubscribe me from your newsletter.
(Score: 5, Touché) by EvilSS on Tuesday January 24 2017, @04:00PM
but Leia looked like she had several strong psychedelic edibles
So she looked like a young Carrie Fisher then. Mission Accomplished!
(Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 24 2017, @07:12PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(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
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Marand on Tuesday January 24 2017, @04:57PM
I remember that being done for Clu (Jeff Bridges) in Tron: Legacy. Maybe it's because the character was supposed to be a bit unnatural, but the effect seemed to work pretty well there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:09PM
I think that was a huge part of it, Clu was supposed to be a digital person. I didn't mind Clu as much, but the Jeff Bridges in the beginning was horrible. They even tried to keep his face off camera as much as possible, but ugh. CGI actors are not ready.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Tuesday January 24 2017, @05:10PM
Does the estate even own the deceased image? I know the Tolkien estate has sued many people for simply using the name Tolkien, but while that likely falls under fair use, using someones image to advertise your product definitely would not.
But now that she is dead, can her estate really sell the rights to the Princess Leia porno? Does her image enter the public domain at some point? Does the Hitler estate make royalties every time a movie features Hitler?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday January 24 2017, @07:01PM
This has been debated for a couple decades in legal circles, so the issues aren't new. By the mid-90s, you had a number of such cases. (Anyone remember Fred Astaire dancing with a Dirt Devil in a commercial back in the 90s? Or John Wayne selling Coors Light?)
Does the estate even own the deceased image?
I don't know in this particular case, but in general use of a dead person's image (CGI or otherwise) is subject to the will of the estate. Many actors have put clauses in their wills for years regulating posthumous use of their image (for example, no use for advertising or depictions involving sex or violence or whatever). Robin Williams, for example, reportedly banned the use of his image for all commercial use in his will until 2039 and prohibited the use of digital insertions into a movie.
But now that she is dead, can her estate really sell the rights to the Princess Leia porno?
No. Princess Leia is a character, subject to copyright. Theoretically, assuming there were no other stipulations in the will, I suppose the estate could sell the rights of Carrie Fisher's image (not in a copyrighted character) appearing in a pornographic film, though I imagine if an estate were to actually try such a thing with a deceased actor, eventually we may see some public outcry and maybe even legal pushback. "The Right to Be Forgotten" becomes "The Right to Stay Dead"?
Does her image enter the public domain at some point?
I believe this is now a thing decided by state law. For now, the legal rights in California [wikipedia.org] extend to 70 years after the person's death.
Does the Hitler estate make royalties every time a movie features Hitler?
I don't know the detailed law in Germany regarding celebrities in general, but for Hitler, the answer is no. Hitler's estate was seized by the Germany government [slate.com] after his death and his will was declared void. There have apparently been discussions at various points among some of his heirs to reclaim the estate through legal suit, but it's never been pursued. At this point, anything he'd have copyright or personality rights over would probably be considered public domain anyway.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday January 24 2017, @09:44PM
I wrote it another thread, but as the value of the likeness goes up as the tech becomes increasingly viable, it is just a matter of time before the rights will be bought and sold like anything else. The notion that it'll solely be a question of what is in the will or the estate will be increasingly moot as Disney et al will just buy those rights outright.
Depending on the contract they signed, they will be used while the actor is still alive or not, whether he wants them to or not, and possibly even sold to a 3rd party if the right offer is made...
"the right to stay dead" is just the tip of the iceberg... a more interesting question is whether there will be enough abuse and outrage that signing away your likeness would be considered an unconscionable contract term and rendered null and void.
If the law doesn't step in at some point, then perhaps some time further down the road, you'll apply for a new job, and be asked to sign away your likeness rights while you work for the company as a'standard term', a matter of course. The same way you might acquiesce to a drug, test, background check, and agree everything you do in your spare time belongs to them, and that you won't get another job with a company competes with them...at least in states that haven't ruled that clause illegal yet.
(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
(Score: 3, Informative) by Bot on Tuesday January 24 2017, @07:22PM
My favourite character is Colossus [wikipedia.org], you insensitive clod.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday January 24 2017, @07:27PM
Well, professional athletes and EA Sports seem to do this as a matter of course in entertainment software. Is there much difference between re-creating them in "This Sports Game Still Sucks But Has Better 2017 Graphics" (Rated T for Teen), and re-creating them in films?
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:33PM
Is there much difference between
Yes. SportGame 2017 is still a video game. It's not live action, it doesn't pretend to be. The players are all just textured mo-cap computer models; they have some canned catch-phrases and signature moves, we all know this, and there is no pretense it is anything else. There is no attempt to fool us into thinking [insert-name] we are actually watching [insert-name].
Its completely different in every way that matters.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday January 24 2017, @07:31PM
But of course this decision will not prevent Disney from doing what every movie production has done in the past.
Get a real actor who looks like the original, only younger. That is how they did it before CGI.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 4, Informative) by VLM on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:14PM
CGI was removed from Perl core in 5.22. We're all supposed to use giant F-ing frameworks now no matter how simple the task.
Just saying I have more pleasant memories and experiences with that CGI than the on topic CGI.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:48PM
Executing XXconsole programsXX from http, Fun times. Hope that ☼arguments parser☼ is excellent!
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:25PM
The time I wasted watching hollywood will not come back, but I can decide to not waste another second on it.
Carrie Fisher jewess or not, just avoid hollywood.
(Score: 2) by chewbacon on Wednesday January 25 2017, @03:44AM
To paraphrase George Carlin: you're dead, facts are facts.