Peter Cushing to star in new Star Wars movie

[Skanky Vamp]

I don't know how I feel about this..
source

Peter Cushing’s Grand Moff Tarkin was one scary governor, and not just because his cheekbones were so sharp they could cut a baby in half. He straight-up destroyed Alderaan. Even more frightening: He was the one person besides the Emperor who could compel Darth Vader to do anything. (“Enough of this. Vader, release him!” “As you wish.”) And according to rumor, we may be seeing more of him in Star Wars: Rogue One.

"Wait," you may be thinking. "Didn’t he die in 1994?" But according to the Daily Mail, a little thing like death isn’t going to stop Peter Cushing from an appearance.

The Daily Mail writes, “Cushing, star of many Hammer House of Horror movies, will be digitally recreated in the new Star Wars spin-off Rogue One, which is being filmed at Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire and is due to be released late next year.”

Cushing will be recreated through CGI, blended with his many film appearances as a horror star in “one of the most complex and costly CGI-recreations ever.”

The Daily Mail’s source states, “Cushing is a pivotal plot line as he was the one to create Darth Vader and there’s a whole back story that will come out.”

Cushing wouldn’t be the first dead man to appear on film. Although characters have been CGI-enhanced after the actors died (Oliver Reed in Gladiator; Nancy Marchand in The Sopranos), only one late actor has been cast in a role: Lawrence Olivier in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

 

[GwenRaiden]

Nancy Marchand in The Sopranos

That didn't look great though, did it. Awful shame she died though. I loved Livia, such a realistic character - she totally reminds me of my grandmother (yeah, feel bad for me)! Plus it would have been great seeing Livia having to testify against Tony because of the airline tickets.

I'm not sure using CGI to bring back characters works well but it really depends on the story. Peter Cushing was an amazing actor and one of my absolute favourites. I'm not sure I'd enjoy seeing him appear to act again digitally since his death. We will have to see. Who knows, maybe it will look and sound fantastic. Morally though.. dunno. It's a weird one.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

That didn't look great though, did it.

You are far too kind. It looked hideous and the dialogue was terrible. But they've come a long way since then.. I am sure it would look good if they do it, just dont know if they should do it.

 

[GwenRaiden]

just dont know if they should do it

What are your reasons?

 

[Fuffy Baith]

I'm going to assume the will get a motion capture actor to do the performance and then recreate Cushing from there. I think that if the screen time on his face is minimal, this could work. I guess they will the audio of his voice from his past performances. This is very tricky, and one could say it either is an honor for the actor or if it's really bad, then a dishonor. I do know that Vader will be in Rogue One, so it would make sense to have Tarkin in there with him, I'd say recast though, over CGI, but maybe that will confuse people Idk. Who knows what kind of role he will play in the movie though. I don't think the studio is writing a script around a character when the actor they want is dead. It's probably a few scenes here and there. So it could work.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

What are your reasons?

It's the first step in rendering actors obsolete. Or at the very least continuing on without them. Leonard Nimoy is dead, but they could CGI him and have him play Spock.

But when they really perfect the human renderings, how many 'people' will be CG? And then can they de-age people? I mean, the 'kids' in Game of Thrones are looking older than they should, why not CG them and de-age them.

You would never have to worry about those pesky actors aging again. Hell! Then you could have a Spike and Angel movie! Just CG their faces on someone else. Who needs the actual actors when you can have puppets of them.

 

[JCoatsworth]

Couldn't they just have create a new iconic character?
And if they're brining him back, why not cast a a good actor and use makeup? They could do it in the 80s:

 

[GwenRaiden]

You would never have to worry about those pesky actors aging again. Hell! Then you could have a Spike and Angel movie! Just CG their faces on someone else. Who needs the actual actors when you can have puppets of them.

I see what you're saying and I agree, but like the article said, “one of the most complex and costly CGI-recreations ever”, I'm assuming CGI is an expensive process if you want to do it right and make it look good, so I don't think actors are going to disappear for good just yet.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

why not cast a good actor and use makeup?

They tried that in the prequels and it was evident and tacky.

I see what you're saying and I agree, but like the article said, “one of the most complex and costly CGI-recreations ever”, I'm assuming CGI is an expensive process if you want to do it right and make it look good, so I don't think actors are going to disappear for good just yet.

Well, a decade ago the CG that 'everyone' is doing now was deemed too expensive to use on a permanent basis.

 

[GwenRaiden]

Well, a decade ago the CG that 'everyone' is doing now was deemed too expensive to use on a permanent basis.

And now it is. I know. But I think it's different when it's being used to CGI actors entirely, say, a whole film filled with them, even when there are real life actors out there ready to go. If that became the standard - would people pay to see it? Would the film industry stoop that low? It would be anti-art, lazy and with a paralysing amount of options.

 

[JCoatsworth]

They tried that in the prequels and it was evident and tacky.

They did one scene and it sucked. But they could definitely pull this off.
But still, they need to leave the old characters alone, in my opinion. I'm not talking about this "they're ruining my childhood" crap, I just think that characters are more interesting if you don't know everything about them. I also don't want a Han Solo spin-off. It's way cooler if Solo is just some guy who gets mixed up in the rebellion and that's it.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

If that became the standard - would people pay to see it?

Of course. Especially with all of the serialized movies. Granted, it's too early in the tech now, but imagine it were 5 years from now... Hugh Jackman is getting too old to play Wolverine, so the studio pays him X amount of money to use likeness and they can continue to produce Jackman Wolverine movies. Would people still go? Hell yeah.. Same with Downey and Iron Man. Imagine seeing the continuing adventures of Indiana Jones with a young Harrison Ford in the starring role in 10 years. Of course I would go to see it. It would be nostalgic but also maintain continuity so that new fans could go back and watch the old films and not feel they are out of place with different actors.

 

[GwenRaiden]

Personally I think it's a cop out. Especially since there's so much emerging young talent out there in terms of acting. I get the nostalgia and continuity aspect and that it could draw fans in to watching the old films - but I'd hate it if that were where the film business ended up. IMO etc.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Personally I think it's a cop out. Especially since there's so much emerging young talent out there in terms of acting. I get the nostalgia and continuity aspect and that it could draw fans in to watching the old films - but I'd hate it if that were where the film business ended up. IMO etc.

I think its only a matter of time. Actors are nothing but tools anyway, so, now they will really be a tool.

 

[white avenger]

It's the first step in rendering actors obsolete. Or at the very least continuing on without them. Leonard Nimoy is dead, but they could CGI him and have him play Spock.

But when they really perfect the human renderings, how many 'people' will be CG? And then can they de-age people? I mean, the 'kids' in Game of Thrones are looking older than they should, why not CG them and de-age them.

You would never have to worry about those pesky actors aging again. Hell! Then you could have a Spike and Angel movie! Just CG their faces on someone else. Who needs the actual actors when you can have puppets of them.

They've already done that in "Terminator: Genisys" where we see both Schwarzenegger as he really is today and like he was in the first movie, all pumped up and sinister.

Also, "Avatar" and "John Carter" both had more CGI footage than live action.

Forget about the "Angel and Spike" movie, I heard awhile back that they're seriously considering bringing Bruce Lee back to do the other two movies of the "Enter The Dragon" trilogy that, obviously, were scrapped when Lee died.

 

[Buffy Summers]

Why do they do this? Did they learn nothing from the 3 prequels?

 

[Blaze]

To me, recreating a dead actor for a performance is just disrespectful to the actor, and to the loved ones they left behind. Even if they truly wanted that actor, it really is not the actor if the whole thing is recreated. It's just taking a recognizable face to make profit out of it. I don't see it as a tribute whatsoever, I just see it as exploiting the dead.

The only way I can agree with this is if an actor dies mid movie, in this case I think it's fine to complete the movie with cgi, a new actor, whatever else, after all the late actor would have probably wanted that movie to be put out there. In that case sure, I can see why this would be done.

@Mr. Pole The difference is that Christopher Lee could agree to being SG'd. If the actor is alive and takes on a role knowing he isn't completely fit, or he is sick (one of the dwarf in The Hobbit was sick during filming and was also CG'd), you at least know that you are being cast in the role. For example, in the Hunger Games, Philip Seymour-Hoffman died with only 1 or 2 scenes left to film. In this case they decided they'd rewrite those scenes, but had they chosen the CGI route, at least the actor chose to do that role for that specific movie.

 

[Mr Trick]

Totally agree with Blaze. It is disrespectful, and it defeats the act of acting. I can see how films might go down this path more in the future but its not something I would approve of.

 

[GwenRaiden]

To me, recreating a dead actor for a performance is just disrespectful to the actor, and to the loved ones they left behind.

What's the deal with that? Do their family have a say? Do the next of kin sign a contract to allow it or what?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

What's the deal with that? Do their family have a say? Do the next of kin sign a contract to allow it or what?

I think with Paul Walker they asked the family, and the family even participated, but I don't think the family would have an official say.. other than if they speak out against it, it may tarnish the box office returns to think he was added to a movie against their wishes.