Rogue One Team Defends Use of CGI Characters

[Sheo_Dagana]

The CGI for Tarkin just looked off... mostly in the way his mouth moved when he spoke. It looked like a CGI cartoon character. The human mouth just doesn't quite move that fluidly when speaking, and that was the thing that kept throwing me off in each scene he was in. It was distinctly notable (to me) because he was talking to real people and it kept taking me out of it, which was kind of what happened with the prequels for me. The hologram would likely have worked better, but in the context of the narrative, it makes more sense for Tarkin to be there in person.

Also, was Vader CGI? There was something off about his look... the neck piece of the helmet and the cape... I dunno how to describe it. It was crazy to realize I hadn't heard James Earl Jones as Darth Vader in 11 years, and the last time I heard it I was too busy laughing to pay attention.

 

[Chewster]

I thought they both looked pretty damn good. It didn't really occur to me that it was CGI until I read more into it. On a second watch I'm sure the "fakeness" might be more apparent, but for a first impression, it wasn't bad.

This is ultimately the problem with many things in films. The initial viewing, it's easy to overlook mistakes but upon repeat viewings, bad or awkward CGI becomes obvious and taking us out of the moment is the opposite of good cinema (maybe). Anyway, the tech isn't quite there yet so I'm predicting a few more years of somewhat awkward looking young Anthony Hopkins [http://i.imgur.com/Gf4d7uW.jpg] before we get comfortable with it.

As far as the ethical implications...I don't know. Getting permission from the estate of the deceased is not quite the same as getting it from the person themselves. It seems reasonable in the case of reusing a work someone has created (someone used LoTR as an example) but it's a lot more personal when it's using the actual person. I mean, let's face it. How long until we have Humphrey Bogart selling us stuff on TV?

I kind of lean toward letting the dead rest. Find another creative way to work it out.

 

[Teshi]

Tarkin looked all right to me because Peter Cushing himself looks like VFX, I think. That man had an amazing face.

There was no need for Leia to turn around - that was just the filmmakers getting overexcited about their special effects, which you'd think they'd have learned their lesson about during the prequels. Other prequels.

 

[Zydrate]

Red Letter Media called Tarkin "SO DISTRACTING!!!!" but I thought he looked great.
I prefer Moviebob's opinion of "If people don't experiment with this technology then it's not going to get anywhere".

I will say Leia's face looked very wrong but oh well.

 

[Yan007]

I knew beforehand that Tarkin would be CG so I noticed. Oddly enough, I was certain Leia was a recast and was genuinely surprised to hear she was, in fact, CG. Most of the people I know who never saw the original trilogy never noticed the CG on Tarkin or Leia.

Guys: IMPORTANT : Keep in mind that because the movie was made with this CG in mind , there is always the possibility that we will eventually get newer updated versions of the Tarkin and Leia CG in re-releases, using updated more life-like technology. I never heard anyone bring up that point before but I think it's something worth mentioning.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Christ... the character is not the actor. It would be like if one of my bartenders had died, it would be disrespectful for me to hire a new one. No. Characters are not actors.

Secondly the CGI was adequate. Sure, my eyesight isn't as good as it used to be... but I doubt it would make a difference. I liked Rogue One. I thought the ending was rushed, but it did everything I wanted. The vehicles and blasters in Star Wars were always cooler to me than lightsabers and space magic... and I got The Dirty Dozen/Guns of Navarone with just that. The Rebels were badass and they got to shine as the clenched jaw, death or glory (or both, as the case may be) freedom fighters who can beat a galactic empire. Yeah, it's true ... I'm kind of a gearhead.

It delivered... and it helped show Tarkin as the manipulative arsehole you felt he was in Ep 4 but never got to see. After all, Tarkin even leads Vader on a leash almost all throughout the film ... and this story showed why he was such a powerful bugger to do so. Devious, cunning, and deliciously amoral.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Christ... the character is not the actor. It would be like if one of my bartenders had died, it would be disrespectful for me to hire a new one. No. Characters are not actors.

I had read this twice. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you made a mistake. Are you saying that if you owned a bar, you would have the bar be short-staffed, because it would be disrespectful to replace the bartender who died?

Character is not the actor. Many actors can play the same character. Shakespeare is the obvious example that comes to mind. I remember a movie a few years back where one character was play by a dozen people. A quirky biopic about Bob Dylan had five people playing the legendary singer/songwriter.

 

[Pyrian]

It would be like if one of my bartenders had died, it would be disrespectful for me to hire a new one. No.

I had read this twice. ... Are you saying that if you owned a bar, you would have the bar be short-staffed, because it would be disrespectful to replace the bartender who died?

What part of "No." did you manage to not understand twice?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I had read this twice. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you made a mistake. Are you saying that if you owned a bar, you would have the bar be short-staffed, because it would be disrespectful to replace the bartender who died?

Character is not the actor. Many actors can play the same character. Shakespeare is the obvious example that comes to mind. I remember a movie a few years back where one character was play by a dozen people. A quirky biopic about Bob Dylan had five people playing the legendary singer/songwriter.

Yes, or more correctly no, because apparently some of the qualms of using a CGI Tarkin was that he (the actor) had died, but I think I, personally, would be happy if I was in his place. After all, it meant I left an impact and left people wanting to explore the character I helped bring to life. And I concluded that was one of things the piece was alluding to, and at the very least as a counter argument to those that rant about it as if it's some ethical quagmire.

 

[KissingSunlight]

It would be like if one of my bartenders had died, it would be disrespectful for me to hire a new one. No.

I had read this twice. ... Are you saying that if you owned a bar, you would have the bar be short-staffed, because it would be disrespectful to replace the bartender who died?

What part of "No." did you manage to not understand twice?

The part where he said "Characters are not actors." That seems to contradict his bad analogy.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

WThe part where he said "Characters are not actors." That seems to contradict his bad analogy.

For starters, her. Secondly, it was a bad analogy but the point still stands.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

John Knoll is also the guy who first came up with the story for Rogue One before it got transferred over to Gilroy and Weitz for the script. Of course he would defend the use of CGI to make his original dream a reality.

Also, was Vader CGI? There was something off about his look... the neck piece of the helmet and the cape... I dunno how to describe it. It was crazy to realize I hadn't heard James Earl Jones as Darth Vader in 11 years, and the last time I heard it I was too busy laughing to pay attention.

Vader's costume in Rogue One is based off of the original costume from A New Hope, which was pretty cheaply made and got very scratched and dull over the course of shooting. Seeing it rebuilt with almost to the exact same specifications looks really weird in Rogue One because it is all cleaned up and plastic looking. There is a reason they redesigned his suit for Empire and Jedi, they actually had the budget to do it. Also, pulling the cape back off his shoulders rather than draping it like it was in A New Hope makes Vader look much broader and more intimidating. Plus, they polished the hell out of his suit to make it blingy for the sequels as well.

 

[Pyrian]

It would be like if one of my bartenders had died, it would be disrespectful for me to hire a new one. No.

I had read this twice. ... Are you saying that if you owned a bar, you would have the bar be short-staffed, because it would be disrespectful to replace the bartender who died?

What part of "No." did you manage to not understand twice?

The part where he said "Characters are not actors." That seems to contradict his bad analogy.

Lol, wow. Okay, sure, I guess I'll explain to you what "no" means. The word "no" means negation. It means disagreement. It means that the statement it refers to is wrong. So when Addendum_Forthcoming wrote "No" after his "bad analogy" it meant that he was disagreeing with the message of that analogy. The analogy served the sole purpose of ridiculing the point he's arguing against.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I didn't mind the fairly obvious use of CGI, or the offputting effect it had, nearly as much as the fact that the CGI artists either didn't see the uncanny valley effect or expected the audience not to. There are ways to hide it- for instance, Leia's face could have been a reflection in the window she's looking in- but the crew seemed intent on showcasing their creations.

 

[Nazulu]

That's a stupid reason to say why he's not in the movie. You could've just hired someone that looked similar, I don't think anyone would really care that much anyway when so many people can look over the terrible actor who played Rey.

Also, does anyone else find this a little disrespectful to use someones likeness like this?

 

[Fijiman]

I was somewhat able to pick up on the Tarkin CGI as he looked slightly off in terms of skin coloration (seemed unnatural next to actual human cast members)

That was my only real problem with CGI Tarkin was that that he didn't exactly seem to fit in with the world around him. While they did a fantastic job recreating him, the lighting on him just struck me as off from what it should have been several times, especially when he was standing right next to someone. I don't have any complaints otherwise though.

 

[RobertEHouse]

How well a computer character comes off is really down to the individual. Some can see a difference in it looking out of place while others feel it fits right in. Both are right, I am though personally more impressed by what effort they managed to do this. That Disney had to get the okay from Peter Crushing's estate which is usually a difficult and time consuming process. Then to later on digitize his likeness and work out how it plays in the film. My hat is off to those folks.

Personally I believe we will not see too much of this later on considering how long both of those processes take and their cost. You have to deal with the estate, actors union and royalties. A beer company did the same thing in the 1990's for a product using John Wayne and Marilyn Monroe again it's a expensive and time consuming process that it's only being hit again in how many years.

 

[MHR]

If the guy is dead, what are you gonna do? huh? Recast another old guy that looks nothing like him? You go with the option that makes it look the most real. So real that it fooled most people that didn't know it was CGI.

Looking at the footage of the scene, the voice acting doesn't really sync up with the face, but it looks very good. I hear they didn't use him for very long, so where is the crime?

I wanna go see this movie, but nobody I know wants to go see it

 

[Frankster]

I didn't mind the CGI at all, it's one thing to overdo it needlessly but when it's used sparsely for the purposes of the story and continuity then it's ok.

In these examples, i found Leia a bit glowing and tbh her scene could have been removed entirely because we already knew where the plans were heading and which ship had taken it. If anything having Leia there made it awkward for the opening of episode 6 cos when leia is like "but im on a diplomatic mission to alderaan" it really makes it laughable, vader: "bith i bloody saw your ship leave, who you think you're kidding?"

But for Tarkin i found the cgi good, if there was an uncanny valley effect it actually added to the scene because and the dread the character inspires.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I didn't mind the CGI at all, it's one thing to overdo it needlessly but when it's used sparsely for the purposes of the story and continuity then it's ok.

In these examples, i found Leia a bit glowing and tbh her scene could have been removed entirely because we already knew where the plans were heading and which ship had taken it. If anything having Leia there made it awkward for the opening of episode 6 cos when leia is like "but im on a diplomatic mission to alderaan" it really makes it laughable, vader: "bith i bloody saw your ship leave, who you think you're kidding?"

See I always figured she was lying, which is why Vader gets really shitty with her rather than dismissive: Rogue One just shows how bald-faced the lie was. Personally I'm not opposed to it, because it's honestly fucking hilarious.