NYT - How (SPOILER) and (SPOILER) Were Re-created for Rogue One
- Thread starter Syriel
- Start date
- Status
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I don't recall any digital humanoid characters in the prequels reaching Tarkin's bar. That may be because I saw a lot of those shots in progress at the time they were shooting it, but there's a clear difference.
That doesn't mean you didn't notice he was digital, but technically speaking it's not really at the level of the CG from 10+ years ago.
GuitarAtomik
Member
This is when you have to fall back on the estate. It's no more unethical than an official authorized biopic of a dead actor imo. Those very often try to recreate the person's likeness as well, they just go about it a different way.
If she hadn't already filmed scenes I think they would hesitate. Otherwise it's not really different than the Paul Walker in Furious 7 situation. I'd bet that if they had plans for her in Episode 9, those plans are probably either out the window or greatly reduced now.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
I think the problem was more with the scene than the CGI tbh. She did the dramatic turn-around, stare into the distance and give the dramatic fan-service line.
It was obviously better, I mean the feeling of "this was so unnecessary and added nothing to the finished product", which the prequels were full of. Tarkin might've been worse since he's in a movie that otherwise looks pretty good and coherent.
I actually heard people whispering in the theater when they first showd Tarkin and not good things either.
Wow a lot of harsh critics here calling Tarkin's CG like PS1-era. I work in vfx and to me, Leia's CG was the "better" one because it took me longer to realize it's CG. It got a couple of things working for it because it's brief and the flatter lighting makes it look more ANH. Tarkin is also a very respectful attempt at full CG replacement of an actor but easier to tell he is CG due to more screen time and action. I think what really jumps out at me is the facial animation. The muscle simulation might needed more refinement. Also, he might look better with a flatter lighting too so he is less wet and more dry looking. Anyways, they were both excellent technical achievement and there is a lot of over exaggeration of these CG's negative here. I took my mom with me and she didn't even know both are CG until I told her.
I'm not shitting on the talent behind the characters, but the production decision to use them. The tech is not here yet to blend CGI humans in the middle of real actors.
Barkley's Justice
Member
Tarkin was really distracting for me. But Leia looked great. RIP Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
My guess is ILM didn't have time to iterate on the muscle simulation. When I was last there, they had been improving their muscle sim tools - I believe the first phase of which was used in the first Avengers for the Hulk, so I know they have the capability to further work on that sort of thing.
Given the article discussion on how they wanted to light Tarkin and how long renders take, my assumption is they spent more of their time focusing on figuring out what lighting model they wanted to ultimately go with if they had to have a bunch of alternate renders to compare during dailies.
MightyHedgehog
Member
To those that already knew that one was dead and the other was very old at the time of viewing, I think it was difficult if not impossible to ever feel convinced by their digital replacements. To the ignorant, I think it's possible that it was good enough to never feel out of place or artificial. I couldn't find it anything but distracting during my viewing even if I felt it was pretty impressive. It just took me out of the film a bit.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I thought they just reused old footage. I had no idea it was CG.
They did a decent job and I liked having Tarkin in another Star Wars film but there is still some way to go. Also the Rogue One Tarkin performance wise didn't quite feel like Peter Cushing either.
I like Tarkin 2nd from the left where it looks like he dyed his hair to look younger to get the new job.
I know what you mean and I said that myself after watching the movie. But the tech for this takes time to develop and movies like this is how they can push it to the next level. Every film that that pushes the tech forward will pave the way for better result in the future. This film did a good job on demonstrating full CG double tech and it will lead to better result in the future. Star Wars prequel's CG probably look terrible but it paved the way for studios believing in the CG tech on large scale full CG environment. Jar Jar is a state of the art CG character with full interaction with actors and environment. Without these movies, the tech wouldn't have advance as much because studios won't invest in the R&D for its tools.
Yeah ILM got lots of legacy software that could use some upgrades haha. I was there till Ep VII and they were doing some small updates. They usually have pretty solid renders though that's easier to comp together.
No doubt.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Something else that came to mind - did people see the film in 2D or 3D?
Curious to see if people who saw it in a particular format are more likely to have a positive or negative impression of the digital character work.
Curious to see if people who saw it in a particular format are more likely to have a positive or negative impression of the digital character work.
Leatherface
Member
I have to admit I was fooled for a little while into thinking they somehow managed to find an actor that looks exactly like Tarkin. It wasn't until a little ways into the movie that I noticed something was off. It was the lighting I think. It was a brighter light so it was easier to see the subtleties of the facial expressions. Leia looked fake immediately though unfortunately (again I think it was the lighting. Very bright).
(I watched the 2D version of the film btw)
(I watched the 2D version of the film btw)
Vincent Alexander
Member
I didn't like Tarkin at first, then every subsequent scene after the first he grew on me. I'm not sure if it is because I got used to the CG or simply that I like his character enough to forget about the CG. By that, I mean I was immersed enough in what was happening on-screen while he was there that I didn't even think about the CG.
Tarkin looked indistinguishable from the real thing to me.
Undoubtedly the best looking "real actor" replacement CG ever done in cinema.
I did see it in 2D on a smaller screen, but I could immediately tell that Leia was CG and it was quite jarring - I never had such a reaction to Tarkin at any point during the movie. I think it worked because he was older and the facial detail (wrinkles etc) added to hiding what was going on.
Undoubtedly the best looking "real actor" replacement CG ever done in cinema.
I did see it in 2D on a smaller screen, but I could immediately tell that Leia was CG and it was quite jarring - I never had such a reaction to Tarkin at any point during the movie. I think it worked because he was older and the facial detail (wrinkles etc) added to hiding what was going on.
Knuckle Sandwich
Member
...I hope we won't still be getting Star Wars movies with Han Solo and Luke Skywalker in them in 30 years.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I think so. Given the resolution differences it's not an apples to apples comparison. Tarkin looked much better than that from a technical standpoint, and I'm saying that as someone who kept imagining Dobby whenever Tarkin was on screen. Your brain's biases and unreliable memory, accompanied by the Uncanny Valley effect is filling in the rest.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Hal Hickel said:
You don't wanna second-guess one of the best VFX guys in the business from the safety of your comfy chair in your living room or office, but I really, really bet this wouldn't have worsened the sense of him being real.
I also bet you could have graded the live-action footage to find a good middle there.
Seeing all the dots on Guy's face, specifically the ones around his mouth, makes me wonder how the mouth movements managed to be so off as frequently as they were.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
The article mentions how they tried to tweak the facial animation to match Peter Cushing's particular tics:
This is probably where the disconnect comes from, if the original movements weren't that close to the final shots. It likely would have looked more natural if the motion-capture actor tried more to emulate Cushing's lip and facial motions, but I'm guessing this didn't really come out until well into post.
Well, we already have lol
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Yeah, it sounds like one of those things where you're trying to fix a problem literally nobody else would notice if you weren't side-by-side comparing frame-by-frame, and in the process you just create a new problem:
So you had Henry's mouth movements that likely looked very natural and animated cleanly and with no problems, and that natural movement ends up getting toyed with just a touch too much in the attempt to make Guy Henry's mouth move like Peter Cushing's - thus ending up with that weird slippery mouth movements every now and again.
So had they changed his lighting to make the resemblance closer, and then not fucked w/ Henry's mouth movements, a lot of that Uncanny Valley probably would have been dealt with.
In a decision between letting Henry's performance be its own thing in Cushing's skin, or manipulating Henry's performance in post to be as Cushing as possible, they chose the latter and ended up in the Valley.
When they talked it broke the illusion more than anything else. Still amazing work but the animation for speaking instantly looked weird. Unfair to compare it to Avatar or whatever, that's a real actor with a structure on top based on their real face and unique 1:1 movements, our brains are totally cool with that.
AwakenedCloud
Member
I didn't even notice that certain characters were CG, wow.
ronaldthump
Member
The overanimation of the faces is why Tarkin fell down on inspection. Posted in the spoiler thread as much. They even had that "evil CGI glint" in the eye and perfectly arched CGI cartoon face framing when he called for the destruction of the "guy in white; name escape me". The one still frame (if I had a bluray I can skip to the timestamp and show it) that reminded me of Jafar and also Scar from the Lion King. Villian being villains from a cartoon. Anyhow, any scene he was in, I found really off.
Lei just looked fake. Her skin shader was off and looked like it was a matte surface and not catching the light right.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Amazing tech.
Looked really poor in motion. It's not ready yet for the huge spotlight it got in Rogue One.
Looked really poor in motion. It's not ready yet for the huge spotlight it got in Rogue One.
Mr. Poolman
Member
I thought both characters were great on Rogue One, and fiancee and me were left wondering how long until actors aren't "needed", just their likeness.
If this tech goes advanced enough, my children could be watching Captain America 14 with the same likeness as Chris Evans.
If this tech goes advanced enough, my children could be watching Captain America 14 with the same likeness as Chris Evans.
The One and Done
Member
On subsequent viewings I felt like the lighting on Tarkin was slightly off. I thought Leia was superb.
If you guys are interested in vfx, I highly suggest you guys watch this documentary called ILM: Creating the Impossible for a little glimpse of the vfx process and the formation of the studio 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoVcGPw_3o
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoVcGPw_3o
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
If you guys are interested in vfx, I highly suggest you guys watch this documentary called ILM: Creating the Impossible for a little glimpse of the vfx process and the formation of the studio
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eDoVcGPw_3o
ILM's YT channel also has a bunch of behind the scenes sizzle reels (usually the ones shown at SIGGRAPH):
https://www.youtube.com/user/ILMVisualFX
I got a shot or two in there in the breakdown
tarkin really took me out of the film whenever he was on screen. obviously a lot of work went into him but i don't think we are close to it being seamless yet. leia was more effective just because of the smoke and mirrors, you don't see her move and you don't dwell on her long enough for it to unsettle. it's just this is leia, albeit with excessive lighting, then boom credits.
jstevenson
Sailor Stevenson
on my repeat viewings I don't find Tarkin nearly as distracting
Bobby Roberts
Banned
You definitely get used to it the more you look at it
Next to real actors a CGI actor needs to be perfect or well hidden with clever lighting/framing. It's not that the CGI was bad, but Tarkis stood out and took you away from the movie. That's a really bad thing to happen in the middle of watching a movie.
- Status