Peter Cushing to star in new Star Wars movie

[Fuffy Baith]

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.

Exactly. If they are just using the actors likeness then that's not their performance it's the animators or the motion capture actors performance really, just with a famous actors "mask" on. I personally have no problem with recasts (for the most part, I have a few exceptions), but as long as the actor plays the character just as good as the original actor or even better then it doesn't matter if they look exactly alike.

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.

They used his brother as a body double and CG'd Walkers face on. And then basically wrote the character out of the franchise so they don't have to do that ever again. It was the right move imo.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Exactly. If they are just using the actors likeness then that's not their performance it's the animators or the motion capture actors performance really, just with a famous actors "mask" on.

Ok, but then remove a famous actor from the scenario. What if the lead actor was just CG. Would you accept a CG person, or persons, in a movie acting with and against human actors?

It's only the next step in evolution.

 

[Mr Trick]

Ok, but then remove a famous actor from the scenario. What if the lead actor was just CG. Would you accept a CG person, or persons, in a movie acting with and against human actors?

It's only the next step in evolution.

But the CG actor isn't dead that's the difference.

Also, where do you stop? If this starts to happen too much, then what's to stop them just keeping a dead actor on screen for years to come. As a one off maybe to complete a film which the actor was working on then I can see a case for it, but beyond that once an actor has passed on I think they should be left to rest in peace. And when you go to see a film at the cinema you are paying to see an good acting performance (or a bad one if you get my drift) the point is a performance should be human, it should be good or bad on its own terms.

 

[Blaze]

Ok, but then remove a famous actor from the scenario. What if the lead actor was just CG. Would you accept a CG person, or persons, in a movie acting with and against human actors?

It's only the next step in evolution.

If the character is created from scratch, than sure, that's basically just like having an animated movie with voice actors. I don't find CGI looks that great (yet), so I rather real actors, but I'm not against CGI as a whole. I think it's better having real actors portraying real emotions, but one day that might be possible to reproduce with technology alone.

That being said, I don't think CGI will ever replace actors.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

That being said, I don't think CGI will ever replace actors.

I can see it. When the technology improves. Not on everything, but certainly on some, if trends of increasing budgets and salary requirements continue.

It would just be taking animation to the next level and giving directors all of the control without the pesky actors getting in the way. Looking at how the made The Hobbit movies, and the Star Wars prequels, I honestly believe if they could have used CG 'humans' in the roles they would have.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

Ok, but then remove a famous actor from the scenario. What if the lead actor was just CG. Would you accept a CG person, or persons, in a movie acting with and against human actors?

why then get a CG person if you can use a live actor? CG is really for roles that maybe aren't realistic to hire a real actor for. Like the hulk. Or something that can't be done practically. For me i just think that if you can get a real actor then do it. No need to rehash dead actors, they had their time, let new ones have theirs.

But the CG actor isn't dead that's the difference.

Also, where do you stop? If this starts to happen too much, then what's to stop them just keeping a dead actor on screen for years to come. As a one off maybe to complete a film which the actor was working on then I can see a case for it, but beyond that once an actor has passed on I think they should be left to rest in peace. And when you go to see a film at the cinema you are paying to see an good acting performance (or a bad one if you get my drift) the point is a performance should be human, it should be good or bad on its own terms.

in this case the actor is dead. And yea that's fine to finish a film they were working on using CG but then after that it's done. No need to use dead actors and would they really want you to? If the actor themselves is not giving the real performance than would they want you top just CG them after they die? I wouldn't.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Of course, we have Gollum from Lord of the Rings which was a CGI character that followed the moves of a real actor on the set.

How soon we forget Tron from 1986 where there were no actors, just CGI. It was clunky back then but advances in parallel processing may make better graphics a good idea. But a star who makes $20,000,000 per movie is a bargain - there are only a few of them and they are consistent draws who earn the movie their salary plus a good deal more.

I think the Star Wars prequels will sour studio moguls on the marketability of movies with excessive CGI, so the acting profession is safe for the moment.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I think the Star Wars prequels will sour studio moguls on the marketability of movies with excessive CGI, so the acting profession is safe for the moment.

But see, I could counter that with the success of Jurassic World which had more CG and was so popular they are bringing it back to the theaters already.

And the fact there are many movies that already use CG people, they just use them at a distance so you can't tell. They used to have extras for those scenes, now they just digitally add people. I think once they perfect the effects, we will have CG actors. The damn blue people from Avatar, we're CG.. and no one complained.

How soon we forget Tron

I could never forget Tron.. but sadly I can never forget it's sequel either!

 

[Fuffy Baith]

The damn blue people from Avatar, we're CG.. and no one complained.

There is a difference between full CG, which is basically just computer animation, and a motion capture actor with a CG costume. Andy Serkis as Caesar would have given the same performance if he had been in a practical costume. If there is nothing to go off of, they whose performance is it? The one that the writers and director are looking for. It certainly can give them exactly what they want, but then again that's just animation. Basing a CG character off of an actor without them giving their performance is basically just using their likeness as a puppet. Even if it seems like the acting might come from the actor.

 

[Blaze]

Ya I agree with Fuffy Baith, motion capture is different than just fully CC'd. Look at video games, even now sometimes they hire actors to motion capture (look at Beyond Two Souls, who has a bunch of A listers acting for the game). So in this case it's almost the opposite effect, actors are just as relevant, and even more relevant in some other media, than they are if directly filmed on camera.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Look at video games, even now sometimes they hire actors to motion capture (look at Beyond Two Souls, who has a bunch of A listers acting for the game). So in this case it's almost the opposite effect, actors are just as relevant, and even more relevant in some other media, than they are if directly filmed on camera.

But that's my point.. if it's a CG actor then if they want more money, more points on the package, whatever, the studio can just replace them. Sure there will still be actors, but they will be easily, or easier to replace. If you want to replace a Robert Downey Jr now you would have trouble, but if it were a mo-cap Tony Stark, it would not matter who the mo-cap performer was, they could just be replaced.

 

[Blaze]

But that's my point.. if it's a CG actor then if they want more money, more points on the package, whatever, the studio can just replace them. Sure there will still be actors, but they will be easily, or easier to replace. If you want to replace a Robert Downey Jr now you would have trouble, but if it were a mo-cap Tony Stark, it would not matter who the mo-cap performer was, they could just be replaced.

Except that for motion capture (which I was talking about), it does matter, it's still the actor doing the acting. Robert Downey Jr isn't just famous as Iron Man for his face, he is famous for his charisma, and the way he portrays the character. If it is motion captured, the actor does matter, making the actor relevant. For example, the actor that portrayed Gollum could not have been just replaced by anyone, because he gave a unique performance. All the visual was based on that actor. Or Ellen Page in Beyong Two Souls. You can tell it's Ellen Page not only because it looks like her, but because of the way she moves and talks (EP runs really funny, it's pretty noticeable in any movies she's made). Whereas someone who is fully CGI might not even be based on an actor, it could be a blank slate played by anyone. Or in this case, someone's face recreated and voiced by a nobody. That's the difference between motion capture and fully CG'd

 

[Fuffy Baith]

If you want to replace a Robert Downey Jr now you would have trouble, but if it were a mo-cap Tony Stark, it would not matter who the mo-cap performer was, they could just be replaced.

That's not true. Are you saying just anyone can play Tony Stark? That the whole point of casting is to cast actors that can play the part that's best for the character. Not every actor can bring what RDJ brings to the role of Tony Stark, even if they just CG his face on it. This is why some people have problems with recasting, is because sometimes the new actor isn't as good or is better than the old actor at playing the same character.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I think both of you are not understanding what I am trying to say, and honestly I am not going to bother with it anymore.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

@Mr Trick "They just see things differently is all nothing wrong with that." it's not that they see things differently, its they dont understand what I am trying to say.

 

[Mr Trick]

Not true. Its always possible that you are misunderstanding them. They have made some varied points as far as I can see. If you don't want to discuss it anymore then fair enough but don't talk down to people just because they disagree with you.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Not true. Its always possible that you are misunderstanding them. They have made some varied points as far as I can see. If you don't want to discuss it anymore then fair enough but don't talk down to people just because they disagree with you.

How in the hell was I talking down to anyone? I said that I was not making my point and I was going to stop talking about it. How is that talking down? I was done with the whole thing until you felt the need to chime in and correct my way of thinking.

 

[Blaze]

Woah, chill guys, no one was attacking anyone.

Mr. Pole, I think I get your point (although I'm human...and French, so I might not). If companies start making a lot of characters in movies CG'd, than they won't have to hire those big expensive names, and they will be more replaceable. But my point is that it will simply shift the industry. You still need voice actors, which are still actors. If everything goes CGI, than actors for the voices or the movement will be hired for that function, and still some actors will stand out more than others and do a better job than others.

You can give personality to a characters simply with the voice. Or a trait, look at Davy Jones in the Pirate franchise, you can easily recognize Bill Nighy by his voice, and he gave the character charisma even though it was CGI. Just like some video games have great acting and others not so much (I'm looking at you cheesy Resident Evil).

 

[Buffy Summers]

Calm down folks. Keep it about the topic, not about the person.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

For motion capture, a stunt double for an actor may actually be the better choice. Why pay A-list salaries for a motion capture job when someone with the same body structure and moves can do the job for a fraction of the cost? You know the stunt double will be within an inch of all body measurements in terms of long bones in the body and general size. It might start a market for voice doubles. A-list salaries can pay for a lot of CGI.