Saw this on my twitter feed, it is suppose to be from ILM using a light stage.
Oh! It is again the fault of the makeup artist who forgot CGI characters and only focused on humans that really exist.
:evilgrin:
What is that supposed to be? All CG? Or the middle one is a photo?
Never mind, I didn’t notice that the left one is the new actor. Thought it was just a photo of a younger Peter Cushing
Well i saw the movie in 3d, with a friend who did not know that actor was fake CG.
Halfway the movie during the pause i told him, and he was amazed by it, so i think its fine.
The thing is i knew he was CG and then you look different at him, and… yes the eyes.
As some scene he had lots of red in his eyes, small veins in the eye and i found that a bit unnatural.
However sometimes people do have that… so well it was maybe a bit strange to see a CG figure have that too.
Perhaps it was some influence of dark forces… who knows those people tend to look a bit ugly or creepy …
Notice the reason why he was put in CG is because the actor didnt live anymore, so it was the best way of solving it for this movie.
Technically it was quite advanced, they combined face trackers, and besides that manually adjusted things like lips of the mouth to flattern when closed etc. I think it was well done, and unless you knew it allready you wouldnt think it was CG.
And maybe that was the point with this whole movie, finally a believe-able 3d movie, not to extreme effects overall.
Despite clearly some scene’s had a lot of CG, it was not the topic of those shots (unlike a previous movie (jarjarbin…)), the main attention here was the story. To me only the story line was a bit strange because most of them where new actors, and i had thought that with CGI we would see more previous actors.
Man similar thing happened to me a long time ago when I watched Avatar with my sister, Been a geek about these things I knew going in that Na’vi were all cgi she thought it was people in prosthetic makeup.
Ever since then I have come to question whether our knowledge that something is cgi colors our judgement of it. Does knowing about the uncanny valley make you an unfair judge, will you judge CGI humans more harshly especially if you already know the are CGI.
The test whether a cgi character has crossed the uncanny valley needs to be done blind with the audience until months or years after not knowing something was cgi.
I tend to think past 2010 it’s really become harder to know what’s cgi and what is real especially when it’s done very well. Take the movie the life of Pi personally I am none the wiser when the used a cgi tiger or the real ones and that movie came out in 2012. Or the Dark Knight movie the are people who think the truck flip scene was cgi when it was actually practical effect.
Not really, movies are all about sleight of hand, there’s no reason we needed to see 3d Tarkin in the movie at all. He could have been a hologram, off-screen, an actor portrayed in make-up like in Sith, etc.
Not to pick on you it’s just that I see this sentiment come up alarmingly often: Oh the actor/actress is dead, better CGI him in.
IMHO with this sort of thing it either works or it doesn’t, there isn’t a grey area. Now take a much better example, Sir Anthony Hopkins in Westworld, I legitimately asked “how did they do that?”. That’s the kind of reaction you want, not half the theater noticing and the other half not. (It also doesn’t help that Peter Cushing isn’t that well known, which is probably the reason why it was more obvious with Leia.)
i’ll throw my 2p into the debate - not being much of a star wars fan, and not instantly realising it was the late Peter Cushing, and therefore must have been CGI, I did not notice anything odd at all.