NYT - How (SPOILER) and (SPOILER) Were Re-created for Rogue One
- Thread starter Syriel
- Start date
- Status
I thought there was one line of Tarkin's in the film they absolutely nailed, and he seemed like a real person for that brief moment. That was a pretty huge accomplishment, but for the rest yeah he came off as fake. Seems like digital artists just can't get the really subtle ticks and movement of all those muscles in the face when they are talking. A big step forward, much work yet to be done.
Tarkin was like a muppet standing next to a real actor. I noticed it immediately and it was jarring.
Skin texture and topography, shading, face and body animation were all distracting. The CG couldn't do any of them convincingly.
I wish they had got a real look-alike, as they did for Mon Mothma.
Skin texture and topography, shading, face and body animation were all distracting. The CG couldn't do any of them convincingly.
I wish they had got a real look-alike, as they did for Mon Mothma.
RustyNails
Member
Same. But if you read gaf they were so horrible you couldnt help but notice them and it distracted from the movie making it all a shitty ruined shit.
RedAssedApe
Banned
you guys who couldn't tell it was cgi (especially in the scenes next to Krennic) need glasses 
yanipheonu
Member
I'll at least say that, while the CGI was still obvious, they are like 95% there to compete photo realism, and most people I watched the movie with didn't even notice.
Tarkin looks bad. He should have been recast completely, or shot in mostly silhouette/reflection. Having him next to real actors in bright lights only widens the uncanny valley. I don't think his role really needed to be as big as it was in Rogue One, and a lot of his presence just seems to kind of muddy-up the waters about who's in charge of what.
If you took Gaf at their word regarding the CG for this film, Tarkin walked into his first scene looking like this:
Something interesting was that I was rewatching A New Hope and Peter Cushing does a lot of body movement, especially in the scene where the Death Star blows up Alderaan. That's probably why they had the actor move around so much for Rogue One.
I thought Rogue One's Tarkin was noticeably CGI, but I'm not sure they could have done better. This isn't a case like Snoke where the CGI is just bad. Tarkin's CGI is clearly very good, but creating a convincing human, especially an actor we're all familiar with, is a lot different from making a creature like Gollum or the Naa'vi. People saying the CGI was better in Avatar are missing the fact that making a giant blue cat person look convincing is going to be much easier than making fake Peter Cushing look realistic.
Biggest areas that were off for me were the skin (Seemed way too ruddy) and mouth movement.
I thought Rogue One's Tarkin was noticeably CGI, but I'm not sure they could have done better. This isn't a case like Snoke where the CGI is just bad. Tarkin's CGI is clearly very good, but creating a convincing human, especially an actor we're all familiar with, is a lot different from making a creature like Gollum or the Naa'vi. People saying the CGI was better in Avatar are missing the fact that making a giant blue cat person look convincing is going to be much easier than making fake Peter Cushing look realistic.
Biggest areas that were off for me were the skin (Seemed way too ruddy) and mouth movement.
Presumably so. The estate got a separate call out in the credits.
SaganIsGOAT
Junior Member
Believe it or not, some of us did actually find it UNCANNY and distracting. It isn't a smear against the movie, it is a smear against this tech not being there yet. The moment his face moved I was immediately sucked out of the experience because not only were his mannerisms unnatural, the subtlety of human expression isn't something we can can change our perception of. So when you have a character with very well realized visuals intending to mimic an actual human, you better make sure you nail the subtleties of humanity properly too. Some people didn't even realize it was CGI while some of us caught it immediately, so clearly they are getting closer, but not close enough.
I saw Rogue One with very little Star Wars background. Going in I had no idea who this character, or actor, was. It was definitely not immediately obvious to me that this guy was CG. I did eventually realize there was something off, particularly in the scenes featuring him with Krennic. I thought maybe these scenes were just weirdly lit, or that maybe either Tarkin or Krennic, or even both, were CG (it seemed a weird idea that they would CG I guy I knew to be alive and well in Mendelsohn but I really couldn't tell, just knew there was *something* going on).
Anyway at the end of the movie I had to Google it to be sure what was going on. Obviously most who knew the actor and the character would realize something was up and would start trying to look closely for flaws. My partner on the other hand had a similar lack of background to me and had no idea that wasn't a real guy.
So pretty successful digital recreation I'd say. While not perfect, still one of if not the most impressive I've seen. I do remember young Michael Douglas in the opening of Ant-Man leaving my jaw on the floor though, which is perhaps my favorite example. Though I guess having the real actor, albeit aged, available helps a lot.
Anyway at the end of the movie I had to Google it to be sure what was going on. Obviously most who knew the actor and the character would realize something was up and would start trying to look closely for flaws. My partner on the other hand had a similar lack of background to me and had no idea that wasn't a real guy.
So pretty successful digital recreation I'd say. While not perfect, still one of if not the most impressive I've seen. I do remember young Michael Douglas in the opening of Ant-Man leaving my jaw on the floor though, which is perhaps my favorite example. Though I guess having the real actor, albeit aged, available helps a lot.
I didn't even know he was CGI. I thought it was some heavy use of make up or other effects. I knew the ending character was CGI obviously by being a known actor. I was amazed with how it looked. I think what helped was the characters didn't move too much so the illusion was harder to break. Reviewing the movie and with that knowledge helped me spot some of the differences that other posters mention, but at first pass it honestly fooled me.
I saw the movie in IMAX 3D for what its worth.
I saw the movie in IMAX 3D for what its worth.
.
Great picture to post. Let me ramble about it for a moment:
When Hal Hickel says this: that lighting him the way he was in A New Hope improved his likeness as Tarkin, but it worsened the sense of him being real because then he didnt look like any of the actors in the scene.
I feel like that's one of the roots of the problem with Tarkin's appearance in Rogue One. The filmmakers went out of their way to be slavishly adherent to the look and the feel of the original Star Wars film, for obvious reasons. Except, it seems, for the lighting of the Death Star interiors? What?
This leads me to ask: why not light the practical actors, to match the original Death Star interior photography? Let me be clear: I believe this lies directly in the lap of the cinematographer and drector, not ILM. And it's obvious in what Hal Hickel says, that they knew this was an issue - but not one they could fix, not with the plate photography being what it was.
I feel like this decision hamstrung ILM, because then they had to choose between 'make him look accurate' and 'make him look like he belongs in the plate' -- and that's a choice they shouldn't have to make.
Ah, well.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
I have talked to multiple who have watched the movie and are not Star Wars hardcore fans. None had any idea that Tarkin was CGI. I'm including myself in that list as well.
Most knew Leia was CGI, but that's because most people, even casual fans, knew who Princess Leia was.
Most knew Leia was CGI, but that's because most people, even casual fans, knew who Princess Leia was.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I didn't get the uncanny valley feeling for either of them.
Hating the implementation definitely seems to be the cool thing to do on the Internet and among people who get their talking points from forums.
I'm usually pretty sensitive to this stuff, but it didn't bother me at all this time. I did just see the standard version, so maybe it's worse in 3D/Imax?
Hating the implementation definitely seems to be the cool thing to do on the Internet and among people who get their talking points from forums.
I'm usually pretty sensitive to this stuff, but it didn't bother me at all this time. I did just see the standard version, so maybe it's worse in 3D/Imax?
Finally watched Rogue One today. When I saw Cushing on screen I was like WTF!? Then I immediately realized CGI had to be applied for him to make an appearance in the movie. It was serviceable, they did a great job, and I actually think people who don't know the actual actor has long passed didn't even realize he was CG throughout the movie, but if you knew you could definitely notice some little things that'd give it away.
Regarding Leia, I don't know what to say, I think she looked fine, but she was on screen for such a short time that I wasn't able to try and see any flaws, so I guess they did a great job there. Of course it'd be easier to notice flaws with Cushing as he was on screen for extended periods throughout the movie and he also had shots with other people in there, which highlighted his "CGness".
In short, I think the job was very well done and many people won't even realize they were CG until they read about it.
Regarding Leia, I don't know what to say, I think she looked fine, but she was on screen for such a short time that I wasn't able to try and see any flaws, so I guess they did a great job there. Of course it'd be easier to notice flaws with Cushing as he was on screen for extended periods throughout the movie and he also had shots with other people in there, which highlighted his "CGness".
In short, I think the job was very well done and many people won't even realize they were CG until they read about it.
Uncle0wnage
Member
imo, Tarkin only looked passable from behind or over his shoulder. Both his and Leia's face didn't move like a human's does. Super distracting for me.
I'm not a massive Sw fan and to be honest don't even remember Tarkin from the first films. When he showed up on screen I couldn't help bit wonder why there was an ugly obviously Cgi old guy in the movie. Jarring as all hell and poorly animated. OTOH Leia was nailed. Looked totally realistic.
I thought Kingsglaive was a good example of realistic human CGI (during most scenes) so I was disappointed how Tarkin turned out. From look to mannerisms he just didn't look right.
The villain looks super dumb imo. Might just be the dumb outfit that nobody would wear that just makes him jarringly fake to me.
Version 3.0
Member
Tarkin looked fine. Just a little CG-ish, hard to say why. Maybe a little too crisp, not enough motion blur on small movements like his mouth when talking. I was impressed, though.
But Leia looked so, so bad. I was shocked. Not only did she not look like Leia, I thought she barely looked human. Probably the worst uncanny valley moment I've ever had.
edit: for the record, I knew pretty much nothing about Rogue One before seeing it. Had no idea there were CG characters.
But Leia looked so, so bad. I was shocked. Not only did she not look like Leia, I thought she barely looked human. Probably the worst uncanny valley moment I've ever had.
edit: for the record, I knew pretty much nothing about Rogue One before seeing it. Had no idea there were CG characters.
- Status