SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Disney to Stop Using CGI for Carrie Fisher, aka Princess Leia Organa
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 54 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Hand me a pair of leather pants and a CASIO keyboard -- I'm living for today!
(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.