Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Star Wars: Rogue One *spoilers from post 1195*
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 34383
Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »What I've read is about 5/6 minutes out of about 13/14 minutes of dinosaur screentime is CGI, the rest animatronics/whatever. That being said, I haven't done masses of research, just something I recall reading a few months back.
So a little under half.
Not really the point; just addressing your comment about people complaining about how convincing the dinosaurs were. People generally haven't, because in all likelihood, whatever scene they remember fondly they were looking at actual props. Spielberg broadly used puppets and props when the dinosaurs had to actually interact with the cast: Sam Neil leaning on a triceratops still looks so tangible and real, whereas Chris Pratt stroking the head of a CGI raptor from 2016 already looks a bit rough & weird.
I think the Cushing CGI, whether convincing or not, was a completely unnecessary move. In fact, to rob a line from Jurassic Park itself, ILM were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should
I mean for Jurassic Park you are talking about dinosaurs - fakery is kinda implied from the get go and part of the contract with the audience IMO. Even the master of tinkering himself George Lucas, decided it was better to use a real actor for Tarkin's (admittedly brief) appearance in Revenge of the Sith. There was no need for it, which just broke the immersion a tiny bit for me. Doubly so for the fake Leia.
Don't get me wrong, it was great CGI, but not a great person.0 -
Not really the point; just addressing your comment about people complaining about how convincing the dinosaurs were. People generally haven't, because in all likelihood, whatever scene they remember fondly they were looking at actual props. Spielberg broadly used puppets and props when the dinosaurs had to actually interact with the cast: Sam Neil leaning on a triceratops still looks so tangible and real, whereas Chris Pratt stroking the head of a CGI raptor from 2016 already looks a bit rough & weird.
I think the Cushing CGI, whether convincing or not, was a completely unnecessary move. In fact, to rob a line from Jurassic Park itself, ILM were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should
I mean for Jurassic Park you are talking about dinosaurs - fakery is kinda implied from the get go and part of the contract with the audience IMO. Even the master of tinkering himself George Lucas, decided it was better to use a real actor for Tarkin's (admittedly brief) appearance in Revenge of the Sith. There was no need for it, which just broke the immersion a tiny bit for me. Doubly so for the fake Leia.
Don't get me wrong, it was great CGI, but not a great person.
Hah, that's fair enough (particularly on the ILM bit). I don't agree, but such is life.
Regarding JP, it's about a 60% chance the person is remembering a prop and not CGI though. On Leia, which I completely agree wasn't nearly as good as Tarkin - I find it amusing when people say "Leia broke the immersion". It was the last scene of the film.
Anyway, I quite enjoyed the film, but then again I don't really dissect them, I go for the fun, and this had it in spades. I don't have the heart to argue about the CGI too much online. Different strokes, I suppose.0 -
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,441 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28152
I don't think discussing the CGI characters is in any way overanalysing - it's quite a significant piece of technology, with potentially significant practical, artistic and ethical consequences for both this series (more so now following Carrie Fisher's death) and cinema in general. This is a film discussion - we welcome any such lively debate (unless it's plot hole nitpicking
)
As I've said before, I thought it was a terrible, terrible decision. For those scenes, it pulled me completely out of the film - not film ruining in itself, but certainly a significant issue nonetheless. There's just something really off about the gestures, textures, lighting, movements etc... with Cushing, and worse again - albeit brief - for Leia. Certainly on a purely technological level it's impressive, but there's a difference between that and technology being 100% successful: I'd put forward that even if you're thinking in those scenes 'that's pretty impressive' the gamble has in a sense failed: you're distracted from the story being told. For me, it just wasn't good enough - whether it will ever be good enough is even uncertain.
It's cool that some people didn't spot the difference, but nor is knowledge of Peter Cushing's death or time difference between this and ANH in any way uncommon. For a significant percentage, even majority, of viewers it will stand out in some way.
There's such vast a difference between clearly fantastical CG and detailed CG humans that IMO they barely warrant comparison. Viewers will much more obviously be able to separate the former, and adjust expectations accordingly (although obviously even clearly cartoonish CG can pull you right out of a film when handled poorly).
I also think there's concerns about posthumously adding to an actor's body of work - there's a sanctity to a performer's conscious performances IMO one should be inherently reluctant to toy with (although maybe horror veteran like Christopher Lee or Cushing would take a ghoulish pleasure in the knowledge of their resurrection). But ultimately Rogue One's CG characters are very noteworthy indeed, potentially a precursor for things to come. We'll see: for now, I think it was a really, really bad decision.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,441 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 28152
It is the character that is being portrayed not the actor. Peter Cushing is not credited in the cast, only a thank you to his estate.
This goes WAY beyond merely being the character, unfortunately - it attempts to directly 'emulate' (christ, I shudder slightly using that word in this context) Peter Cushing himself to try and convince the audience it is in fact Peter Cushing. That an estate can be credited over an actor is a slightly disheartening thing in and of itself.
I raise no objection to the fact that the estate and the filmmakers can likely do precisely what they like in this context once agreement is reached between them - legally, that's their right. That the creative / commercial team behind the decision made it in the first place is what I'd object to.
Meant to point out before that a decision to use a CG zombie actor also brings much more basic creative restrictions over murkier ethical debates. It limits what the character can do, the locations they can be in, even potentially the very visual identity of the scenes in question. The computer artists behind this have highlighted lighting discrepancies between A New Hope and Rogue One as a significant hurdle in their efforts, for example. Creatively and practically you are freer if you recast - indeed, you don't have to look beyond Star Wars and even Rogue One itself for examples of that.I think it's something we're going to see more often in future and should get used to it.
If we see more of it, I'll continue to object to it vehemently
Not something I want us to get used to for the reasons I've mentioned.I really don't see how it detracts from the film at all. I would argue that it adds to it and contributes to the continuity of the story.
Can only agree to disagree here, as I've said pulled me right out of the film. Fair enough if it didn't for you. I am more than willing to make allowances for human mortality when it comes to mere continuity (itself often an inconvenience, TBH, especially in a series with as convoluted a lore as Star Wars - heck, the prequels are one big continuity cluster****) and would've been far less distracted with a new Grand Moff - or, indeed, no Grand Moff at all.0 -
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,441 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 28152
Frankly, I find the practical issues more objectionable than any ethical ones - just don't think it looks right first and foremost. Although I still would rather they don't try and digitally recreate actors in the first place unless extraordinary circumstances dictate it (e.g. to put the finishing touches on a performance after a tragedy) 0 -
Advertisement
-
https://youtu.be/oo6wsXjOg6M
Advertisement