Now we can CGI anything we like, what is the point of actors?
Does an actor explicitly own the right to their image? Even in a virtual sense?
What's to stop a studio just creating their own CGI actors and saying it's a coincidence if they look like any particular actor?
>What's to stop a studio just creating their own CGI actors and saying it's a coincidence if they look like any particular actor?
There are a lot of laws regarding likenesses. Most likely he one of his estate sold his likeness to Lucasarts. I think it's is most actors peoples contracts these days.
Originally it was for stuff like action figures and stuff like that, but I think it also extends to 3D recreations.
What would be the point of that though? They only used cgi tarkin here because he's already an established character.
Seeing famous actors in films often destroys a little bit of the immersion i feel for a film, why would directors bother with that if they could just create characters with completely original appearances? Surely it would be easier than bothering to cast or filter through various unsuitable candiates
Also you cant capture a great performance by trying to create it digitally. If it becomes a popular medium itll die out pretty quickly
Just create now actors, who says we need to base it on someone already existing.
Imagine, in the future we can have celebrities that don't even exist.
> Technology isn't even there yet for convincing medium shots
> Scenes would work fine anyway with creative framing and lighting based on CGI-aided practical makeup
> Go with fucking fully-lit CG closeups it will look great LMAO
>Now we can CGI anything we like, what is the point of actors?
In some rare cases they're cheaper. They can also physically promote your shit at cons.
>Does an actor explicitly own the right to their image?
Not if parody has anything to say about it.
>What's to stop a studio just creating their own CGI actors and saying it's a coincidence if they look like any particular actor?
Funds and reception mostly. No sense gambling on something that won't pay off.
>Now we can CGI anything we like
implying we're not still neckdeep in uncanny valley with this shit
Robin Williams was clever not to allow this bullshit with his image for 50 years after he's gone.
>What's to stop a studio just creating their own CGI actors and saying it's a coincidence if they look like any particular actor?
Remember that game, The Last of us? Character Ellie clearly looks clearly based on Ellen Page, but she had no part in that game, in fact, she was acting for another game called Beyond: Two Souls
Hatsune Miku because Japan
People who think this looks even close to real should be institutionalized
>creating their own CGI actors and saying it's a coincidence if they look like any particular actor?
could you imagine how much of a legal nightmare that would be for movie studios
also CGI is shit and will always be shit when it tries to be realistic, its why shit like mars needs moms flopped
That's not even the cgi from Rogue One, it's a fucking sculpture.
My god that looks absolutely terrible. That isn't actually from the movie is it?
The CGI doesn't look that bad.
In fact, the friends I saw it with weren't even aware that it was CGI.
Which NES game is this?
You and your friends should be institutionalized
If you didn't like the movie, that's fine, but there's real things to complain about. Complaining about a non-issue and saying the CGI "looked bad" when it fooled anyone who didn't know already that it was CGI really doesn't help whatever point you're trying desperately to promote and push.
I haven't expressed any opinions about the movie
Anyone who was fooled by the CGI should be institutionalized if they aren't legally blind. They've lost the ability to recognize human behavior. They have to be completely insane.
You fell for OP's picture, thinking it was from the movie when it's not. Your opinion is therefore invalidated entirely, because it's clear you don't know what we're discussing here in the first place.
This... friends confirmed for lack of empathy... subhumans fooled like birds who mate with bird sperm collector dummies
I was actually impressed but the problem is when they deliver dialogue and the lip synchronisation just still looks off.
It's just not quite there yet. We are so in tune with the subtleties of human movement that even the greatest of simulated humans do not cut the mustard so to speak.
But they did it great with Forrest Gump and that Audrey Hepbern commercial. The trick is using actual compositing instead of doing everything in a fucking computer with shitty facial capture.
The Forrest Gump stuff was obviously faked, though. It didn't look close to convincing.
> It doesn't looks utterly unacceptable for *all* people, therefore it's fine
These are our standards now for a multi-million film production; congrats for validating them
>Now we can CGI anything we like, what is the point of actors?
>What's to stop a studio just creating their own CGI actors and saying it's a coincidence if they look like any particular actor?
this is actually what they tried to do with FF Spirits Within and what they've done with music with Hatsune Miku
And she sued them over it and (I think) won (but I'm too lazy to google it).
>what is the point of actors?
They're cheaper and more authentic than CGI.
>and that Audrey Hepbern commercial.
That was a massive undertaking and the entire commercial is stylized, it only worked well because everything in the commercial was CGI
Literally nobody complained when this was done in The Social Network but the pretards here are quick to talk shit just to find a reason to bash star wars.
forgot pic, needless to say it didn't work
wasn't that just done to make one real actor a pair of twins, it was just a high tech version of the parent trap
>What's to stop a studio just creating their own CGI actors and saying it's a coincidence if they look like any particular actor?
>A million hours' man-hours generating a photorealistic model that will likely end up looking uncanny anyway (plus time spent getting an actor to mo-cap the model's actions) vs paying an actor a few bucks to do a quick scene.
you tell me
>Seeing famous actors in films often destroys a little bit of the immersion i feel for a film, why would directors bother with that if they could just create characters with completely original appearances?
people go see a movie because of the actors in it, not because of the movie itself
it's sad but that's how it is
>lighting based on CGI-aided practical makeup
Like when they had Patrick Stewart play himself young in that one X-Men movie and he ended up looking like an egg with a fucking face drawn on it?
it didn't work in that movie but it worked in ant-man and civil war.
Literally no one watched The Social Network, not even you. You just saw a bunch of trailers and your mind invented the rest.
Well, that's kind of the opposite: the first thing they did with that was an extreme closeup in broad daylight.
>instead of doing everything in a fucking computer
But that's exactly what they did with Audrey Hepburn so what are you on about? I mean sure the head was composited onto the filmed body but that's nothing compared to rendering a convincing face.
>some people who knew it was cgi beforehand say it's "bad cgi" only because they knew it was cgi
>people who didn't know beforehand didn't notice or know it was cgi after seeing it
This is what I've observed in talking to people about the film.
>an egg with a fucking face drawn on it?
I know I shouldn't encourage you but I am *still* laughing at this
>muh anecdotes about my retarded friends
Listen cunt, I can do that too. My GF immediately laughed and said Grandma Tarkin looked like a fucking cartoon even on the shitty cam rip we were watching.
You're right, the CGI looks much better than the real one.
Nope, these are our standards. Looks pretty good to me
>they finally got that pig to lose the extra 10 pounds
Lucas must be erect.
There is whole movie based on that. The plot develops in to a story of overall singularity, but this is the plot of the first half. Watch it, its amazing.
>what is compositing
why can't they come up with something new instead of relying on dead actors?
You thought an effect, that you knew was an effect, "looked bad," and you've shared this anecdote/opinion. People I knew and talked to didn't know it was an effect and didn't notice or think anything looked bad there (which is sort of the point of a special effect), and I also shared these anecdotes/opinions. What's the problem? Why are you upset? How have I wronged you here? Because the opinions/anecdotes I shared don't agree with you? Is that it?
If you're looking for people to constantly agree with you and your feelings are hurt by mere disagreement, you've come to the wrong website.
He's not fully digital, he's digitally de aged and that's a totally different thing
>35 yrs old
how come they didn't get a body double for tarkin/leia and cgi the faces on the double?
I found the Princess Leia CG to be a lot more convincing than the Tarkin CG
resurrecting dead actors on the big screen is something new.
Because we still need actors that don't look like a mix of wax and rubber and have mouth movements that don't look freaky
This is true. They couldn't do the same effect with Tarkin, and I suspect Carrie Fisher's face was too fucked up to de-age her successfully (I mean, it's a computer, not a genie's lamp).
I kind of feel like maybe they shouldn't have been in the movie, but at the same time, it doesn't bother me that much.
>Now we can CGI anything we like
We can't really. Even just getting a realistic human face to talk takes an enormous amount of work and is STILL not 100% convincing. Getting more extreme emotions from these animated faces is pretty difficult and usually looks like shit.
>What's to stop a studio just creating their own CGI actors and saying it's a coincidence if they look like any particular actor?
Money, mainly.
Also note that actors aren't just puppets. They are contributing enormously to the artistic picture. They make decisions, a lot of them.
Thats what they did for Leia at least
Wouldn't really have mattered much because
Other than this being photoshop can anyone explain why the top still looks worse than the bottom one?
Because it's extremely expensive and time consuming, plus it's not realistic enough yet. In about a decade you'll have a point.
...
I don't get the question. We've been able to make movies without actors since just about forever.
It's called animation.
>10 years time
>companies just stealing peoples liknesses
>using social media as some kind of actor catalogue
There's a b tier movie concept in there somewhere
I am going to explain to you why CGIng dead actors isnt as smooth as de-aging the process.
First, its the stand in fault. While they may hire someone who kinda looks like the actor, its not the actor. Their facial movements dont line up to the actor, yet they map their face, and apply the living actors facial movements to the dead actors.
That makes the actor they are trying to bring back look foreign, and wrong. Their mouth feels wrong. Eyes not their, subtle movements are not the same.
They need to figure out how to better transfer ones actors face movement to comply with a set rules of the dead actor.
I actually agree this was a bad idea.
The mouth movements are way too unnatural.
Considering in Rogue One it was like their first serious attempt and they're already this good, I'd say give it a year or 2 and they'll be there.
This kind of GI wouldn't have me minding constant updated cuts like Lucas used to do.
People have been saying this since AVATAR, at least.
Special effects have existed since the beginning of movies and they've always been improving on them.
The main problem is having a real person whom which we know how he acted, his gestures and movements as a base of comparsion
If they had recreated a Mr Nobody people wh}ould have bought it maybe on an 85% or more.
Look at POTC Davy Jones. He's the most realistic piece of CGI i have ever seen
I mixed up one fake human for another
The people I'm being deragatory towards confuses a fake human for a real one
That's because people know what a human look like.
During the first scene it was like a video game cut scene, the lips movement were so fucking weird i couldn't believe it was real.
I had no idea and almost spit my drink out at the theater when I first saw his face
Your experience talking with subhumans about their opinions validates nothing
Anybody fooled by the CGI should be marked like Jews in Nazi Germany or institutionalized if not legally blind
You can't remember or tell what was and what wasn't in the movie. You have no part in the discussion. Please show yourself out.
You keep samefagging.
Why?
>Thinks that posting more than once in a thread is samefagging
We should mark redditors too
Have you even seen the movie yet?
This and only this!
Yes see
You saw the movie, but were fooled by the OP?
So either you don't remember what you saw, or you're lying. Either way, it means your opinion doesn't really matter much, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
>cgi faves
*faces
>They are contributing enormously to the artistic picture.
In case of movies heavily utilizing technology like this, actors contribute to marketing rather than to artistic pictute. They are used as props, just like cgi. Space- and capeshit would have the same level of artistic merit if they were fully cpu generated, and that level is 0.
>Not wanting near perfect 3-D representations of favorite actors
>not wanting someone to steal the models from Disney's archives
>not wanting them to produce sex toys using models of your favorite actors
Mocap and voice.
>Fooled by the OP
No? I knew that the OP wasn't a real human, but it has similar traits to the CGI. Neither looked human
How can you be too stupid to understand my argument? If you mistake either of those fake humans for a real one you have to be a crazy person. Mixing up one fake human with another is not a comparable mistake at all.
You're retarded and possibly insane
I'll get posting this in these threads until people acknowledge it.
The studio producing 'Gladiator' spent $2 million dollars to recreate Oliver Reed for around 1 minute of screen time. Its hardly noticeable, which makes it even more astounding considering it was made 17 (SEVENTEEN) years ago.
Modern production companies are either lazy or cheap, because the tech is certainly out there.
You believed the OP's image was from the movie.
It wasn't.
Your opinion on the movie means nothing because you either don't remember accurately or did not see it at all.
That's completely different, they just took material that they'd filmed of him and composited it onto a body (and yes, it's noticeably off much like a suspicious shoop.)
If you don't have or can't create filmed material that fits well enough with the action you're trying to do, then you can't use that technique at all.
Am I the only one who thought the CGI (at least for Tarkin) was good? I thought it was very convincing, and if they had just avoided the full face shot of Leia then even that would've been very believable.
the acting happens in the movement of the characters which CGI can't yet portray without seeming unreal.
In Rogue one the CGI actors are believable right up to the moment they start any sort of movement. But they are more real than the stills fro the film suggest.
>reading comprehension
and avatar only worked because your mind is more forgiving on an alien than on a known human.
You're retarded