Page 1 of 1

CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:09 pm
by Lupe
I know this isn't really news but with no "general movie discussion" forum I'll stick it here, feel free to put it somwhere else.

The film Simone Brought up the concept of a fully CGI actress.
Before this, Carling adverts were reinserting actors into famous movies, and people constantly remaster and fuck with existing movies so heres the concept.

We're pretty much at the point where you could create a digital Charlie Chaplin and make a new Chaplin Film.

The black and white and granieness would help but looking beyond that, we're pretty close ( maybe only a few years ) to the point where we could digitaly re-create many great film icons.

OK so they wouldn't act like their human counter parts, but if you've seen an impersonator on TV you know how close they could be, and with the sort of motion capture WETA is doing, why not ?

You could even program in random character traits we knew they had, Marylin Monroe was stoned on set some times ? ok, lets add that randomly into the film, Elvis occasionally got drunk and didn't turn up, fine, lets randomly have the computer version do that too, add it into the production schedule.

Point is, theres a shed load of issues and concepts about this so heres the deal. Make this thread free form, talk about anything you like concerning the possibility of digitally recreating actors from the past.

For example:

Do you want to see Viva Las Vegas:2 ?
How could you make them more believable ?
What are the problems with the concept ?
Is it morally wrong ?
Should it be ok to go back and recreate the missing scebnes from metropolis or should it be left as is ? Which would be the definitive version ?
Soon it will be possible to rework vader in ROTJ to look like a 50 year old Hayden, you want to see that or should it be left as is ?
Does Jaws simply look too rubbish now ?

Go for it.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:34 pm
by Tubbs Tattsyrup
Well, they've already done it for Lawrence Olivier in Sky Captain (or so I have heard), and weren't they gonna do it to Brando for Superman Returns? Or are they going the all-deleted-scenes route for that?

I don't think that anyone's gonna make such drastic changes to the original films, eg Jaws, though. The filmmakers, I think, respect them. And to recreate actors from the past, they'd probably have to get permission from the families. I think that CG will be more likely used to get today's actors looking differently (in place of makeup) or as stunt doubles etc.

Though, the Godfather game has a pretty good recreation of Brando...

The main thing about Chaplin, though, is that even if you could do a CG Chaplin, you wouldn't get the "directed by Chaplin". It would not be a Chaplin film because he wouldn't have any input in the film. It would be like a Chaplin puppet animated by other people (which, of course, it would literally be anyway). I remember them sticking Elvis and Gene Kelly and stuff into Coke or Pizza Hut commercials, and that seemed pretty tacky (if well-done). I dunno. I think that even Hollywood has *some* respect for deceased actors.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:54 pm
by Lupe
exactly... Godfather 4 could be made with Brando digitally created to look younger, I know there was an Adams family 3 on the cards before Raul Julia's sad demise, if it were possible to make it, with a performance from a digital Raul, flawless down to personal ticks and traits should it be made ? or should a film legacy die with the actor ?

This isn't a new concept, wasn't "A shot in the dark" hacked together from lost footage after Sellers death ? ( note: haven't checked that one feel free to clue me in )

But is it right, and above all is it something you want to see, for example, For example, what if someone decided to go back and remake the original King Kong but added in all the scenes Peter Jackson put in, only with the original cast in a 1930's directorial style, is that something you would like to see or is it sacrilidge ? I mean the original would still exist ( unless they pulled a Lucas )

Lets also think further out of the box, not into sciencefiction but into the probable future.

Lets say you design a computer that analyses the past work of Orsen Welles, It looks at the scripts he filmed, selects a suitable author and plot from one and effectively models how he would have shot it based on probability, environmental and social implications of the era, how his life may have panned out based on likelyhood etc etc etc.

It then creates a story board and shooting script of how he would have made it, casts likely digitally recreated actors from the period, it basically makes the film based on logical conclusions concerning what we know, THEN it selects a director closest to a series of cinematic and psychological tests who exists today and has them re-cut it, then it re-edits anything it thinks is too out there.

( it also factors in the billions of variables I haven't bothered to post )

Would you watch it ? is it a great idea or a terrible one ? is it morally correct or wrong ? could they write "The latest film... by Orson Welles" On the tagline ?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:59 pm
by Tubbs Tattsyrup
I would probably watch it from a curiosity standpoint, but it is totally WRONG to label a computer-generated film "by Orson Welles". Because it isn't.

It's an interesting concept though.

But in the end it's one thing to hack together a film (eg a couple of Panther films) from footage filmed by a now-deceased actor, and another thing to recreate them digitally claiming it's "them". At least the actor was consciously involved in deleted footage.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:01 pm
by Shane
Then I could see young Marlon Brando play Superman.

I always wanted to see that.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:20 pm
by MasterWhedon
Brando's stuff in Superman Returns is all the unused footage Donner shot for Superman 2. His lines--especially the ones in the teaser--are pretty key to Superman's character journey.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:57 pm
by Lupe
"Then I could see young Marlon Brando play Superman. "

I know, Its like a Geeks wet dream and a geeks worst nightmare put together.

I mean you could actually see a new Maralyn Monroe film! but it wouldn't be Maralyn Monroe, a perfect facsimilie but not the real thing.

All the films you wish had been made, all the actors you wanted to see but never would again would have come back to life to make the movies you dreamed of but it wouldn't be real...

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:13 pm
by TheButcher


"WE HAVE A RULE IN THIS OFFICE," SAYS STEVEN SPIELBERG, USHERING JAMES CAMERON AND ROBERT ZEMECKIS TO TAKE SEATS NEXT TO "WE SIT THE BOX-OFFICE CHAMPION the middle. Uns used to be my seat. It's not anymore." "It won't be long before it's your seat again," replies Cameron, taking his position between the other two at a round table. If you combined the earnings of the top five highestgrossing movies of the three filmmakers now sitting across from Empire, it would be somewhere in the region of $10.9 billion.

The reason for this summit meeting taking place in Amblin Entertainment's Games Room - the haven for Spielberg's video-games in the '80s - is a Hollywood hot-button topic: the rise of performance capture. As you probably know, performance capture is The Artform Formerly Known As Motion Capture, the digital filmmaking system that Zemeckis pioneered with The Polar Express, Beowulf and A Christmas Carol, Cameron put above the with Avatar, and Spielberg has embraced for the first time with The Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn, out winter 2011.

If motion capture merely records the movement of actors in skintight bodysuits with reflective markers tracked by fixed cameras, then performance capture goes the extra mile, utilising more cameras and a specialised head rig that captures each emotion on the actor's face and eyes. This camera data is fed into a computer that creates a 3D replica of the actor's every nuance, allowing the filmmaker to then add his camera moves digitally.

The controversy has come mostly with the adverse reaction of the acting community, thesps such as Sandra Bullock, Jeremy Renner and Robert De Niro querying the validity of performance capture as an actor's medium, i think it's a bit faddish," said Morgan Freeman. "Because it's really cartoons. If I could look into your eyes and see a completely different person, that's what I want." The technology provokes questions (will actors be redundant? Is it acting, animation or some new hybrid?) about both the future of filmmaking and acting. And who better to answer them than three filmmakers who have surfed the bleeding edge of moviemaking for 35 years...


Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:56 pm
by Fievel
The same thoughts came out when the Final Fantasy movie was released back in 2001.
Pauly Shore has made several films since then. I think people are here to stay.

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:19 am
by Spandau Belly
Yeah, Lawrence Olivier was cast in SKY CAPTAIN in a small role as a dead scientist but his character appears in photographs and as a glitchy hologram recording of some personal log or something. It was a very small role in an unsuccessful movie and it sorta acknowledged that he was dead by making the character dead. So it didn't really make big waves.

I'll try to use my prophet powers here.

I'm pretty sure Robert Zemekis's YELLOW SUBMARINE is going to be a big hit because people like The Beatles and family cartoon 3D movies all make good money. And after that success I think the whole idea of dead-guys-in-new-movies will start to gain appeal. Somebody is going to do it. Somebody is going to cast a dead guy in a new starring role. It would probably have to be a guy who is closely associated with one type of movie. Somebody like Bruce Lee, Elvis, Charles Bronson or John Wayne. People know what to expect from a Bruce Lee movie and so it wouldn't be too hard to write the type of thing he always appeared it. I imagine this movie will be met with controversy and might do okay solely on morbid curiousity and maybe Hollywood will try a second new film starring a dead guy before they give up and realize that it just isn't popular.

One aspect being that Hollywood is always chasing a young market. They chop down movies to make them PG13 so young people can buy tickets because they are the biggest market. A young person today might not even know who Paul Newman was let alone get excited about seeing him in a big new movie.

The funny thing is this technology is arriving as it becomes less relevant. Everybody acknowledges that the days of a star-driven film market are over. The 80s were the last big heyday of mega-stars. Characters have become bigger than the actors who play them. People care about Batman more than Michael Keaton or Christian Bale. People care about James Bond more than the actors who play him. We see continual reboots and remakes happening even closer than ever to their previous iteration. One of the main things keeping Hollywood fresh has always been actors. People have seen the same plots and characters a million times, but it's the new spin that a new actor puts on the material that keeps it fresh. And it always seems there are more talented actors ready to work than there are great roles waiting for them.

So in the end, casting dead guys in new movies is an expensive way to chase a small nostalgia market and has huge potential for backlash. But I am pretty sure somebody is going to try it once in a big way so that Hollywood can learn this lesson the hard way.

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 2:09 pm
by TheButcher
Is George Lucas plotting to make a film full of Dead Movie Stars?
Hey folks, H arry here - I'm one of those odd birds that likes the hell out of RADIOLAND MURDERS - I love classic radio, and Christopher Lloyd as the Sound Engineer was like genius. That film was directed for George Lucas, by Mel Smith - a crazy talented gentleman that needs to make more movies. Anyway, he was apparently chatting with the DAILY MAIL in the UK and dropped a fairly awesome bomb of info about George Lucas and his latest obsession of buying up the film rights to Dead Movie Stars, with the notion to make something with them - and a digital resurrection process, that probably avoids the natural curses regarding disturbing the dead.

I've not been privy to any of Uncle George's plans, but I've seen some amazing things done with classic movie stars by a few talented filmmakers, in terms of tests that pretty much told me, this is definitely going to become a reality for us movie-goers. That's the danger of incredibly powerful visual effects... you can do anything - and in the hands of a cinephile like George, it opens an Ark that promises untold fortunes... Just remember to shut your eyes! Heh.

Actually, I'm crazy curious about this. How about you?

Found this in today's UK Daily Mail

Click here for the whole story

Mel Smith on George Lucas:

"He’s been buying up the film rights to dead movie stars in the hope of using computer trickery to put them all together in a movie, so you’d have Orson Welles and Barbara Stanwyck appear alongside today’s stars.’ Whether Lucas’ attempt to superimpose the golden-era stars on to today’s screens is doomed to failure or not, Smith will be too busy to be part of it.


Call me Nobody

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:22 pm
by Nachokoolaid
I'll be honest, as long as the families are complicit, I'll actually a huge supporter of this concept, as long as the execution isn't shoddy.

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:33 pm
by Fievel
Nachokoolaid wrote:I'll be honest, as long as the families are complicit, I'll actually a huge supporter of this concept, as long as the execution isn't shoddy.

I'll agree with this as well. Unfortunately your point about the execution is huge.

Re: CGI me Andy Kaufman back to life

PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:01 am
by TheButcher
A Comedian as Artist
‘Creating Reality, by Andy Kaufman,’ at Maccarone
ROBERTA SMITH wrote:When Andy Kaufman, the entertainer, so-called anti-comic and Elvis impersonator extraordinaire, died in 1984 at 35, he left behind two very distinct if connected personas.

The better known is Andy Kaufman, the television star who provided some of the funniest moments on the popular sitcom “Taxi” in the guise of the loopy auto mechanic Latka Gravas, he of the high-pitched voice, unidentifiable accent and alternate sense of reality. As Latka, Kaufman appeared on all five seasons of “Taxi” (1978 to 1983); it brought him fame, financial independence and a television special. (This was stipulated in his first contract.) But Kaufman didn’t like the sitcom format and agreed to stay on the show only when the writers allowed Latka to develop multiple-personality disorder so he could play other characters.

The second persona is Andy Kaufman, the stand-up innovator, politically incorrect satirist and cult figure revered by comedians and artists alike — an artist in his own right. This Kaufman, who had been obsessed since childhood with professional wrestling, invited women to wrestle with him onstage, to the outrage of many feminists. He behaved unpredictably on talk shows, often leaving his hosts semi-flummoxed. He led perplexed audiences in grade-school-like singalongs and once invited the audience members at the Improv in New York to touch a cyst on his neck, albeit only after they washed their hands. Following his ineffably odd evening “Andy Kaufman Plays Carnegie Hall,” he took the entire audience for milk and cookies.

If audiences became disgruntled by his failure to amuse, he might burst into tears, his cries and shrieks becoming increasingly incoherent and rhythmic until he suddenly started expertly accompanying his vocals on conga drums. He often seemed like a straight man with no partner. His ineffective jokes and weird stunts are seen as an offshoot of Conceptual art, performance art and the interactive strategies of relational aesthetics.

The second Kaufman is the subject of “On Creating Reality, by Andy Kaufman,” an engrossing, idiosyncratic exhibition at the Maccarone gallery in the West Village. Latka is nowhere in sight. The show has been organized by the artist Jonathan Berger, who makes the relational aesthetics reference in the news release.

Also according to the news release, Mr. Berger collaborated with the estate of Andy Kaufman; Lynne Margulies, Kaufman’s companion; Bob Zmuda, Kaufman’s frequent partner in crime (he usually refereed the wrestling bouts); and Tony Clifton, a repulsive lounge singer whose existence remains wrapped in ambiguity. (Thought to be a Kaufman creation based on a real person, he was impersonated by Kaufman; his brother, Michael Kaufman; and Mr. Zmuda during Kaufman’s lifetime and has made periodic appearances since Kaufman’s death, including at the after-party of the opening at Maccarone.) And in a brilliant stroke, Mr. Berger has made the show deliberately interactive — relational — in a way that feels like a curatorial invention.

It comes in two parts, set in separate spaces: Kaufman’s stuff and his art. The main gallery at Maccarone is arrayed with 17 white vitrines with hairpin legs evoking 1950s Long Island, where Kaufman grew up. They display a fascinating range of ephemera and personal effects: letters, childhood poetry, scripts, unpublished novels, press clippings and photographs, tour schedules, props and costumes.

In a sense this material forms a study in young, self-aware ambition, a portrait of an artist operating from a personal inner reality, in place since childhood, striving to create a larger reality that conforms to it. The envelope containing Kaufman’s 11th-grade report card is scrawled with an unusual note from a teacher: “I just don’t know Andy.”

Two vitrines contain his collections of 45s and LPs; another is piled with letters from women, some denouncing his “intergender wrestling” contests, others threatening him and still others hoping to participate. Kaufman’s involvement with Transcendental Meditation is covered; the prosthetics and jacket that he and Mr. Zmuda used when impersonating Tony Clifton are displayed. Also here: a letter Kaufman wrote to Elvis Presley in 1969, in which he says that he is studying “to be a famous TV personality” and describes Presley as “out of sight — not just in surface, but in depth.” Kaufman’s rhinestone-studded, satin-lined, high-collared “Elvis” shirt shares a vitrine with the sports jacket and rip-off shirt and tie that Foreign Man, the inept, squeaky-voiced comic precursor to Latka, would shed as he morphed into the smoky-voiced, swivel-hipped Elvis.

The rapidity of Kaufman’s rise is summed up with an immaculate yellow Post-it from around 1975, on which is written the name and phone number of the NBC executive Dick Ebersol , and the words “call collect.” Mr. Ebersol subsequently became disenchanted with Kaufman; it was in 1982, during Mr. Ebersol’s year as stand-in producer of “Saturday Night Live,” that Kaufman was voted off the show in an unusual viewer poll; it was a serious blow to his career and his ego.

While every item on view is carefully numbered, there are no labels. Instead, you get a form of oral history that may, like Kaufman’s performances, make you slightly uncomfortable. Mr. Berger has arranged for a Kaufman colleague, friend or relative to be present each day to answer questions and reminisce.

These guests, who are not announced ahead of time, include Mr. Zmuda, Tony Clifton, Michael Kaufman and Carol Kaufman-Kerman (the artist’s sister) and his biographer Bill Zehme. A round table and several chairs, not unlike the set of a television talk show, encourage interaction, which is essential to a full experience of the show.

In Maccarone’s new project space, you can view Kaufman’s art and see some of the costumes and props from the vitrines in use. Mainly you will see the unorthodox, versatile talent behind it all. The video segments include appearances at the Improv in New York and on David Letterman’s and Johnny Carson’s shows; an interview with one of the Tony Cliftons as well as skits from “The Andy Kaufman Special” and “Andy Kaufman Plays Carnegie Hall.” In an appearance on Dinah Shore’s show, he sits at the piano delivering a childish song, while Marvin Hamlisch, Sammy Davis Jr. and Bob Hope look on, more or less cringing.

Concurrent with the Maccarone show, “Andy Kaufman’s 99cent Tour,” 10 evenings of screenings and discussions, will be held at Participant Inc. on East Houston Street, starting on Tuesday. Organized by Mr. Berger and Lia Gangitano, the director of this alternative space, it will present Kaufman’s television special and the Carnegie Hall evening in their entirety; show some Kaufman family movies; and delve into his record collection and his interest in professional wrestling.

Each evening will be overseen by some of the same aficionados appearing at Maccarone, as well as the artists Dan Graham, Mike Smith and David Robbins (Mr. Robbins will appear in a video introduction). The Participant news release features a photograph that should have been at Maccarone: it shows a teenage Kaufman, honing his Elvis impersonation at the birthday party of a 5-year-old named Jeff Citrin, around 1964.

“Creating Reality, by Andy Kaufman” is on view through Feb. 23 at Maccarone, 630 Greenwich Street, at Morton Street, West Village; (212) 431-4977, “Andy Kaufman’s 99cent Tour” will start on Tuesday and run through Feb. 24 at Participant Inc., 253 East Houston Street, between Norfolk and Suffolk Streets, Lower East Side; (212) 254-4334,

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 14, 2013

An art review on Saturday about “Creating Reality, by Andy Kaufman” at the Maccarone gallery and “Andy Kaufman’s 99cent Tour” at Participant Inc., both in Manhattan, misspelled the surname of Kaufman’s biographer, who will be one of the guests at Maccarone answering questions and reminiscing. He is Bill Zehme, not Zheme. The review also referred imprecisely to the appearance of the artist David Robbins at a screening at Participant Inc. He will appear in a video introduction, not in person.

Andy Kaufman
Video of Alleged Daughter

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:48 pm
by TheBaxter
one thing's for sure -- Michael Kaufman is no Andy Kaufman

or Bob Zmuda, for that matter.

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:25 pm
by Fievel
TheBaxter wrote:one thing's for sure -- Michael Kaufman is no Andy Kaufman

or Bob Zmuda, for that matter.

It worked for three days.... in the internet/cell phone age...... I say good for them! Seriously! The Kaufman-style pranks are just that difficult to pull off today. No one can keep their mouth shut, everyone has a cell phone...... it just can't go as smoothly as it did back in the day.

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:10 pm
by TheBaxter
Fievel wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:one thing's for sure -- Michael Kaufman is no Andy Kaufman

or Bob Zmuda, for that matter.

It worked for three days.... in the internet/cell phone age...... I say good for them! Seriously! The Kaufman-style pranks are just that difficult to pull off today. No one can keep their mouth shut, everyone has a cell phone...... it just can't go as smoothly as it did back in the day.

yeah, that's true. this same prank 20 years ago could have gone on for a year before anyone figured out who that woman was. i don't even know if this was actually meant to go an further than just that room. wasn't there some thing about how nobody was supposed to be allowed to record it? maybe they only planned for it to get out as a story, not with video of the girl speaking and everything. of course, if they were expecting that to happen in the cell phone age, that would have been a bit naive.

if nothing else, they definitely succeeded in getting andy's name back out there in people's minds. if that was any part of their intent, it was a success.

Re: CGI me Andy Kaufman back to life

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:37 am
by TheButcher
Andy Kaufman's Brother on Death Hoax Claims: 'I Think I've Been Misquoted' (Exclusive)
He postpones a second interview with THR as reports surface that the comedian's "daughter" is a New York-based actress.

Andy Kaufman's Brother Says He is Victim of a Hoax (Video)
Michael Kaufman says he never hired an actress to play his long-lost niece.
The bizarre Andy Kaufman saga continues.

Seth Abramovitch wrote:The comedian's brother, Michael Kaufman, appeared on CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper on Thursday, where he told host Jake Tapper that he believes he is the victim of a hoax meant to trick him into believing that Andy is still alive and father to a 24-year-old woman.

"I believe I am part of the hoax," Kaufman said. "I don't believe that [the woman claiming to be his daughter] is acting on her own, though."

Kaufman flatly denied a report on The Smoking Gun that says he hired an actress named Alexandra Tatarsky to play the role of the Taxi star's 24-year-old daughter, allegedly born five years after Andy's official cancer-related death in 1985. The woman took the stage at a New York comedy club on Monday, claiming Andy is her father and is still alive.

The interview comes after 24 hours of swirling speculation and conspiracy theorizing over the staggering allegations that the comedian, who in life was famous for staging elaborate pranks, might have faked his death and burial. Similar rumors have surfaced repeatedly since Kaufman's death, and numerous websites have sprung up offering evidence of his existence. The out-there comedian would be 64 if he were alive today.

Earlier on Thursday, Michael Kaufman spoke to THR, saying he was "misquoted" in media coverage and that he never fully believed the story.

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:56 pm
by TheButcher
3-time Oscar winner Jim Rygiel comes home for high school reunion
Elizabeth Snyder wrote:The future of films

When asked if movies will ever get to be so digital they don’t need human actors, Rygiel is quick to refute the notion.

“We will always need actors. The thing about an actor is, his soul is the character. When I worked with Andy Serkis (who created the computer-generated character Gollum in the “Lord of the Rings” movies), he was the brain and the soul of that character. You will always need people.”

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:18 pm
by TheButcher

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:12 am
by TheButcher
Do we really want a digital Peter Cushing in a new 'Star Wars' film?
Things are about to get really creepy in Hollywood

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:58 pm
by TheButcher

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:20 am
by TheButcher
Collider DECEMBER 7, 2010:
George Lucas NOT Digitally Resurrecting Dead Actors

‘Rogue One’: What Peter Cushing’s Digital Resurrection Means for the Industry

The New York Times:
How ‘Rogue One’ Brought Back Familiar Faces
DAVE ITZKOFF wrote:Tarkin presented considerably greater difficulties, but the filmmakers said it would be just as hard to omit him from a narrative that prominently features the fearsome Death Star — the battle station he refuses to evacuate amid the rebels’ all-out assault in “Star Wars.”

“If he’s not in the movie, we’re going to have to explain why he’s not in the movie,” said Kiri Hart, a Lucasfilm story development executive and “Rogue One” co-producer. “This is kind of his thing.”

For principal photography, the filmmakers cast the English actor Guy Henry (“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”), who has a build and stature like Cushing’s and could speak in a similar manner.

Throughout filming, Mr. Henry wore motion-capture materials on his head, so that his face could be replaced with a digital re-creation of Cushing’s piercing visage.

Mr. Knoll described the process as “a super high-tech and labor-intensive version of doing makeup.”

“We’re transforming the actor’s appearance to look like another character, but just using digital technology,” he said.

Lucasfilm and Industrial Light & Magic said their re-creation of Cushing was done with the approval of the actor’s estate. But the technique has drawn criticism from viewers and writers. The Huffington Post called it “a giant breach of respect for the dead,” and The Guardian said it worked “remarkably well” but nonetheless described it as “a digital indignity.”

Mr. Knoll said he and his colleagues were aware of the “slippery slope argument,” that their simulated Cushing was opening the door to more and more movies using digital reproductions of dead actors.

“I don’t imagine that happening,” Mr. Knoll said. “This was done for very solid and defendable story reasons. This is a character that is very important to telling this kind of story.”

He added: “It is extremely labor-intensive and expensive to do. I don’t imagine anybody engaging in this kind of thing in a casual manner.”

If “Star Wars” films are still made in 50 or 100 years, Mr. Knoll said audiences would probably not see likenesses of Mark Hamill or Harrison Ford playing Luke Skywalker or Han Solo. (He noted that the actor Alden Ehrenreich had already been cast to play the young Han Solo in a coming film about that character.)

“We’re not planning on doing this digital re-creation extensively from now on,” Mr. Knoll said. “It just made sense for this particular movie.”

Martin Scorsese to Digitally De-Age Robert De Niro in ‘The Irishman’

Actors rush to protect their image from 'digital resurrection' after they have died following eerie Star Wars: Rogue One reanimation of Carrie Fisher

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:00 am
by TheButcher
A Statement Regarding New Rumors

Lucasfilm Has "No Plans" for Digital Re-Creation of Carrie Fisher as Leia
"We are still hurting from her loss."

THR DECEMBER 11, 2015:
How 'Furious 7' Brought the Late Paul Walker Back to Life
The actor's 2013 death didn't kill his character: VFX artists, with the help of his two brothers, created 350 shots to keep him on the screen.

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:09 am
by TheButcher

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:19 am
by TheButcher

Re: The Real Ghostbusters 3

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:54 pm
by TheButcher
Fox, Paramount Accused of Using Stolen Computer Graphic Technology for Hit Films
A VFX firm demands an injunction on "Deadpool" and three other blockbusters plus one huge video game.

THR JULY 24, 2017:
Harold Ramis' Daughter Addresses 'Ghostbusters 3' Possibly Including a CG Egon
Ryan Parker wrote:"Personally, for me, it is hard to imagine that people would accept it, but who knows. The technology now is amazing."

Ivan Reitman made headlines over the weekend at San Diego Comic-Con, where the producer/director said there may be another live action Ghostbusters down the road.

Reitman made the comment while discussing possible projects in a panel related to the beloved franchise, which included "wonderful plans for an animated feature that we're deep in design on already and a really great story ... And of course a new live-action film. I am not giving any more secrets," he said.

Screen Rant reported that Reitman was asked during the panel if any consideration was given to creating a CG version of any of the original cast, which would include the late Harold Ramis for Egon, if the possible fourth film changed gears from the 2016 female-led reboot, to which the director said "It’s possible … it’s something we’re thinking of."

On Monday, Ramis' daughter, Violet Ramis Stiel, told Heat Vision she was aware of Reitman's comments over the weekend.

"It's bizarre," Ramis Stiel said of the possible digital re-creation of her late father. "Personally, for me, it is hard to imagine that people would accept it, but who knows. The technology now is amazing."

Ramis died in 2014 at the age of 69. In 2016, his daughter penned a touching essay about growing up with her dad on the sets of movies like Ghostbusters.

Bringing actors back from the dead for a film has been somewhat controversial. When the legendary Peter Cushing was re-created for Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, some fans praised how far technology had come to allow the effect to happen and to look so eerily great. But there were others who said it was disrespectful to the late actor. The Cushing estate gave its blessing for the endeavor.

The original stars of Ghostbusters have talked for decades about a possible third installment to follow up Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghosbusters II (1989). Those have yet to materialize, but the 2016 reboot was a commercial bomb. It's unclear how serious talks of a third film starring the original cast really are.

Ramis Stiel said if — and it may be a huge if, who really knows — another Ghostbusters is made and her father is digitally added, it would be OK with her as long as the work is exceptional.

"I try to think what would he have thought," she said. "If it's great and it works, then good. And if there is a problem, then obviously no."

Re: CGI me Charlie back to life

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:26 pm
by TheBaxter
about the only part of the ghostbusters legacy they didn't shit upon in the last film was harold ramis. so why not? if you're gonna drown the entire property in stinky diarrhea, why should the dead guy get let off easy?