Star Wars: The Return of Peter Cushing

[huedell]

I apologize. I missed that. Sometimes I read too quickly.

I'm not sure if I've missed it or not. Is the point supposed to be that animation doesn't belong in film?

[huedell]

The more I read about this I'm starting to feel insulted. It seems like the filmakers are convinced the audience can't accept another actor playing Tarkin.

They are not thinking that. They are thinking how the audience would think it's a cool thing to see an attempt at something closer to the "original". And that they'll pay money to see it.

Now.... will they be able to pull it off? Probably not all that well if they try something difficult... but that's just the current state. And it is what it is. Fix it up for the Blu-Ray release.

So... then... the beat goes on. And, f they continuously "fail" to a certain degree.... there WILL be an outcry to a certain degree... and they WILL course-correct.

But, no matter how many obstacles (and related course-corrections) they find themselves with, eventually the craft will be perfected.

And that's the future of film.

All film?

Of course not.

Look at how valuable practical effects were to the marketing of the new Star Wars TFA movie (after all the "digital glory" of the prequels)... there'll always be a place for practical effects AND practical actors... but, time DOES march on... and so do moviegoers.

I don't see what the problem is with hiring an actor and having him look and act similar to Peter Cushing. I think they'd be better off using the time and money used to recreate Cushing on other aspects of the film.

Possibly.

It seems more and more like some one wants to show off their new technology.

You seem to be implying there's some kind of phantom menace (hee-hee) at work here... as if some lunatic wants to grab attention with an Evel Knevelesque stunt jump. If so, well, you're correct in that part of this IS exhibition... you know, that's WHY many many people go to the movies: TO see new exciting things on the screen. It's the reason Star Wars (an otherwise largely unoriginal concept) was one the biggest game-changers in cinema.

Hey, I'm the first one to pooh-pooh special effects gimmickry to "sell" a movie. I enjoy a good script performed by charismatic actors above all else---but, bringing Tarkin, or Brando's Jor-El, or any number of other dead actor's beloved character portrayals back to the big screen?

Now THAT'S a SFX gimmick that'll hook me.

Just because you can do something doesnt mean you have to.

And just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.---Heh---sounds like something Evel Kenevil would say.

[Bruce Banner]

They might as well just get Wayne Pygram to play Tarkin again.

[enyawd72]

I'm with P.N.Gwynne on this one. Very against resurrecting dead actors via CGI. Not only do I find it disrespectful, (much like these hologram concerts) but no matter how much it LOOKS like Peter Cushing, it won't BE Peter Cushing.
We're not talking about someone playing a deceased actor in a biography...that I get. We're talking about replacing a person. No matter who does the motion capture, or the voice, it won't be Cushing's performance.
No one can predict or assume to know how he would play a scene, or deliver a line...what subtleties or quirks he might bring to the performance, etc. Plus I shudder to think of how this will open up a Pandora's box of let's bring back so-and-so for a remake, a sequel, or whatever. It's all in very poor taste, IMO.

[Gorn Captain]

I don't oppose the use of CG, if no other means are available. If your character has nine arms and two heads, sure, CG is the way to go.
But if it's just a human being, I'm sure that there are plenty of actors that can deliver. Because you know it isn't Cushing, you won't be convinced by a computer simulation. To me, CG is still a "cartoon" medium. It feels less real, it looks less real, I am not convinced (yet) by any of it, to make me feel as if a person is really there. Everything you do "on set" makes it that much more real to me.
Don't get me wrong, I miss Cushing. But, as it stands now, no computer will make me feel the affection I had for the man, no computer will capture the little things that made him Peter Cushing.

[huedell]

I'm with P.N.Gwynne on this one. Very against resurrecting dead actors via CGI. Not only do I find it disrespectful, (much like these hologram concerts) but no matter how much it LOOKS like Peter Cushing, it won't BE Peter Cushing.

To be fair, the onscreen entity isn't supposed to be Cushing himself... it's supposed to be the director's vision of the "Grand Moff Tarkin" character. It's an animation... a puppet..... what-have-you. So: Jim Henson dies----someone else plays Kermit The Frog. And, although some may not approve of the performance technically, there's nary a peep from the the "let Henson's version of Kermit rest in peace by not allowing anyone else perform Kermit" contingent.

You can look at it like "creepily" resurrecting the dead, but (just like the political thing we disagreed on moons ago), sometimes a given matter like this can be complicated-up, where the reasoning in the complications aren't necessary.... or, frankly, aren't helpful in delivering a result that the mainstream people cite with a precedence like "Oh yeah, that makes sense."

Am I saying "just agree with the mainstream"? No. Am I saying "I'm right. You're wrong." Not really at all. Sure, I currently disagree with the mindset you & PNGwynne have, but I would easily change my tune if these issues were raised on a larger scale with more dialogue.... I could indeed be convinced by hearing more similar takes to yours...

...buuuut, for now, I feel the "photography steals souls" take doesn't jive with film-making precedence, especially when I find the possibilities with digitally rendering images of characters that possess the features of dead actors so interesting.

[thunderbolt]

^^^ Kermit's essentially a cartoon character made of felt (and can be played by anyone), Cushing is a real person and they are drawing him from footage from Star Wars and his other movies, he won't be a doll with someone's hand up his backside, he will be a CGI mess created by some computer fx guy instead of the role played by a flesh and blood actor as it should be. Let the dead rest in peace and live on thru their works. I really have no desire to see new John Wayne movies as they will not capture the essence of the actor, just his face. The same will hold true here, Cushing's ability won't be recreated, just his face. Guessing Alec Guinness will be next.

[huedell]

^^^ Kermit's essentially a cartoon character made of felt (and can be played by anyone).

Totally subjective. Right? Just making sure, because your shorthand makes it sound like it's an undisputed truth that "anyone" can play Kermit. I'm sure many would disagree. I'm fine with it. But, I'm sure many would disagree... and for good reason. It's not difficult to pick out the more Hensony performances of Kermit---even if it wasn't/isn't Henson himself performing.

he will be a CGI mess created by some computer fx guy instead of the role played by a flesh and blood actor as it should be.

"As it should be." Again, quite subjective. What kind of rule is "Tarkin should be played by a flesh and blood actor"?

Does that apply to Yoda always having to be a puppet. How about Two-Face's digital FX in TDK? Is that legit when the actor was being partially animated?

These are rhetorical questions (unless you'd enjoy responding, of course)---just to illustrate the slippery slope---ummmm "slippery incline"(?) were dealing with here.

Incidentally, I'm not saying this technique won't be wonky to a certain extent early on, but, as explained earlier, we're discussing the evolution of this technique and it's accompanying morality here (not my choice of tangents---but one I enjoy discussing nevertheless).

Let the dead rest in peace and live on thru their works.

Well, technically, I'd purpose they'd be "living on" in the celebration of the character THEY created rendered in a digital puppet that happens to look a lot like they did at the time the character was performed by them. Anything else sounds like superstitious mumbo-jumbo to me---personally. I respect many here feel that "respect for the actors and their chosen medium" translates differently---I'm just having trouble seeing the connection and don't feel there's any resurrecting or reanimation of the dead here, despite the term "animation" and it's broad meaning seeming awkward in the context of the term "re-animation."

There's no sacred burial sites being dug up here. It's just a digital rendering.

I really have no desire to see new John Wayne movies as they will not capture the essence of the actor, just his face.

That's a good reason for ANYone not to go. If I saw something in this vein, and felt it was failing, I'd be disappointed and anticipate further such work with great trepidation. But my standards for what I allow to affect me enjoying a popcorn movie are different than yours, obviously, so I'm sure whatever they do in this particular movie, I'll allow to slide, even if I think it misses the mark a bit.

The same will hold true here, Cushing's ability won't be recreated, just his face.

Again, that's understandable.

Personally, I'd rather see a close rendering of Cushing than another actor play the part.

That said: No one's really tried to do this kind of challenge with a lead character that appears throughout the whole movie, a scenario where there's much more margin for error. We know, in Rogue One Tarkin ain't THAT character. So, I'm sure I'll just think it's totally awesome they didn't recast the part.