Audrey Hepburn in new Chocolate Commercial

Except we're not talking about the product. I don't even remember the brand of chocolate it's for. If anything...it might as well be an advertisement for CG dead celebrities. In this case it's distracting and taking away from the product they're advertising.
I remember the brand. It's for Galaxy, who I wouldn't have heard of otherwise. I completely disagree, they'll definitely more press than they otherwise would've gotten.
 
I think it's charming actually.. well crafted too (not perfect) but pretty amazing to watch (and that's coming from a huge fan of hers)
 
I think it's really good, and probably the best CG of a real person I've seen. I'm very picky about these things too, but she does look more real and moves more like a real person than say, Hulk, who should really be easier to do since he's a monster.

And this is targeted towards viewers in the UK, where they are all familiar with Galaxy chocolate. If you're not familiar with it in the US, then it won't stick in your memory.

I think it could work with Harrison Ford as a younger Han Solo. If you've read the article in the original post, they initially had a stand in for Audrey whom they were planning to map the image over her face. However, because she has different facial expressions and subtle nuances, the actress would still not look like Audrey. That's why they went with a CG model of her in the end to be totally accurate.

In the case of someone like Harrison Ford though, he WILL have the same nuances, because he's the same person. He'll just be older. Same goes for other actors who are older as well whom they might want to recreate in their heydey. This would open up the way for an older actor to still play a role but to look younger, but they'd still be credited with the part even if they don't look as they do now. It's not that different ultimately from mo capping or even voice acting. They've just had their physical appearance altered, that's all.

But what happens if they wanted to, say, recreate someone like Kirk Douglas? Could they get Michael Douglas as a stand in? The difference between a different actress and a family member is that Michael would have many of the same nuances because they're either hereditary or he's learned them from his father as a child. Most children pick up the same facial expressions as their parents.

I think this could also potentially open up the possibility of having Sean Connery playing James Bond again (in a one-off) where he could look as he did in his heydey circa Dr No or FRWL. Would be cool to have another 60s James Bond adventure with him.
 
I watched the clip first without reading the article, and I actually thought this was an old movie scene with just the chocolate stuff added in some way.

Then rewatching it knowing it was heavily CGI'd, it naturally felt easier to notice "it was a damn good job, but perhaps not quite perfect".

Anyway, even though it's not really the same work done, I couldn't help it but think of this classic:

[YT]cMRbM1cMZ4I[/YT]
But as an old McQueen/Bullitt fan I had a harder time swallowing that back in the day. Steve with a.. Ford Puma!? :woot:
 
As a 3D artist, this is truly the most incredible CG person I've ever seen. Words can't explain how much time and effort must of went into the finest of details and nuances to get her expressions/model/lighting correct.

This is a massive step forward in recreating iconic figures. (Compare this to Trons young Jeff Bridges)
 
As a 3D artist, this is truly the most incredible CG person I've ever seen. Words can't explain how much time and effort must of went into the finest of details and nuances to get her expressions/model/lighting correct.

This is a massive step forward in recreating iconic figures. (Compare this to Trons young Jeff Bridges)

Yes, I must admit I never thought CGI technology could recreate a real person as well as Audrey and look and move about so lifelike. If I hadn't known before watching, I would've thought they did some kind of Forrest Gump technique of using old footage of her and digitally enhancing it or coloring it. In fact, I did think maybe they recoloured some of her old footage the first time I saw it before reading the article on the techniques they used.

I agree it is a massive step forward. I hope to see this kind of thing in an actual film. It also means that for something like Gladiator, had it been done now, Oliver Reed could've still been in more scenes without needing to either paste his head onto someone else or film him using a double or obscuring him partly.

That also means that someone like RDJ could go on playing Tony Stark for decades to come. It would be his performance, even if they recreate him as he is now by CGI.
 
[YT]QAbEe4FTr6c#![/YT]

0:34-0:37 is probably the most eerily realistic part.
 
^ I thought the bit just after where she thinks to herself that she'll get off the bus and then smiles politely at the other passenger as she leaves her seat was pretty realistic as well. The bit which I probably found the least realistic (and only slightly so) was when she looks down at her chocolate the first time.
 
It was a charming commercial. A big step for CGI. I fail to see what was disrespectful about it.
 
Im currently having an argument with my co worker who just said

-i think what ruined that audrey animation for me was her emotion
-it was waaay too subdued. way out of character for her. she's not that reserved and smiles a lot more. The tune is moonriver from breakfast at tiffany's, she's super hyper in that
-the guy is the same guy from the movie also the way they act is so far removed from their relationship in the movie
-so it was like "WTF, they don't act like that"
-also i think part of me died when i realized they exploited one of my favorite actresses, movies, and song to sell chocolate
 
Im currently having an argument with my co worker who just said

-i think what ruined that audrey animation for me was her emotion
-it was waaay too subdued. way out of character for her. she's not that reserved and smiles a lot more. The tune is moonriver from breakfast at tiffany's, she's super hyper in that
-the guy is the same guy from the movie also the way they act is so far removed from their relationship in the movie
-so it was like "WTF, they don't act like that"
-also i think part of me died when i realized they exploited one of my favorite actresses, movies, and song to sell chocolate

I think she was deliberately subdued. She was enigmatic - as if to make you wonder who is the mysterious beautiful stranger on the bus that the driver sees. I think it would've been out of character for the scene of the commercial had she been smiling more and a lot more hyper.

And Moon River is used because it is the song most immediately identified with her. Of course it doesn't really fit the setting in the same way as Breakfast at Tiffany's, because the setting looks more like Roman Holiday. However, I think it still works with the scene and is like a homage to Audrey.

Also, I don't think she was exploited. It didn't cheapen her in any way. On the contrary, it was so charming that I think a lot of people watching it could fall in love with Audrey all over again and have a yearning for her. It's as if it's a scene from a lost Hepburn movie or as if she's made a comeback and appearing on our screens again after so long.

What I originally thought when I first saw the commercial was that the man in the car caught sight of her and recognised her as Audrey Hepburn - like a ghost who had returned, and that everyone around were slightly bewildered as to how she could be alive again - a bit like an Elvis sighting. I thought Moon River fit perfectly with that as a haunting piece of music that suddenly began playing.

It was only on subsequent viewings that I realised the driver was just noticing a pretty girl on a bus and she was making eyes at him, maybe hoping to catch a ride and get out of that crowded bus that had broken down.

I personally think it's one of the coolest and most charming commercials ever.
 
What I originally thought when I first saw the commercial was that the man in the car caught sight of her and recognised her as Audrey Hepburn - like a ghost who had returned, and that everyone around were slightly bewildered as to how she could be alive again - a bit like an Elvis sighting. I thought Moon River fit perfectly with that as a haunting piece of music that suddenly began playing.

I thought literally the exact same thing.
 
Also, I don't think she was exploited. It didn't cheapen her in any way. On the contrary, it was so charming that I think a lot of people watching it could fall in love with Audrey all over again and have a yearning for her. It's as if it's a scene from a lost Hepburn movie or as if she's made a comeback and appearing on our screens again after so long.
I agree. It’d be quite different if faux Hepburn was speaking into the camera and praising a Dyson vacuum cleaner or some such. But as you say, the commercial was fashioned as a scene from one of her movies. Very soft-sell, fairly tasteful.
 
People who get offended by this kind of stuff need to get laid. Celebrities aren't demigods that can't be touched. I don't think Audrey Hepburn would be offended by it, so why should anyone else?
 
It's weird seeing Audrey Hepburn™ but it was tastefully done. I consider it a nice homage.
 
Im currently having an argument with my co worker who just said

-i think what ruined that audrey animation for me was her emotion
-it was waaay too subdued. way out of character for her. she's not that reserved and smiles a lot more. The tune is moonriver from breakfast at tiffany's, she's super hyper in that
-the guy is the same guy from the movie also the way they act is so far removed from their relationship in the movie
-so it was like "WTF, they don't act like that"
-also i think part of me died when i realized they exploited one of my favorite actresses, movies, and song to sell chocolate

I think your roommate is overanalyzing. It's just a commercial.
 
I found that commercial incredibly charming, and the CG render of Audrey was amazing.
 
I didn't care for it. She looked pretty photorealistic at points. But her movements were unnatural for half the commercial... she came off like a human marionette. There's something eerie about that, as well as something eerie about this artificial form of resurrection via CGI. It might be just a commercial, but insofar as we are analyzing said commercial, it sucked.
 
This was a really well done commercial. I didn't even notice that it was cgi to be honest. Its incredible how far technology has come. I don't see how it was disrespectful in anyway. I think it was a nice little tribute to Audrey Hepburn. In fact, the commercial seemed to be more celebratory toward Hepburn rather than advertising its chocolate. Its a pretty great commercial.
 
It's cute..but I was creeped out. No by the CG, but the whole idea behind it. She's been gone for such a long time - and represented a certain era in Hollywood - and now here she is..ageless in the modern world. it's breaks my heart that she's passed on too, so it felt like a tease.

And the CGI is impressive but you can tell it's CGI still. Her movements at times feel too smooth..Nothing can beat the real thing though, especially those eyes of hers. (sobs)
 
Last edited:
Well to me it's no different than bringing back Marlon Brando or possibly Christopher Reeve in a new Superman movie.
 
For a commercial that's fine....Then it'll be a rabbit hole, a slippery slope if it was for movies or shows you know? It'll lead to an Expendables 13 with Steve McQueen and Charles Bronsan. NO! I Love Lucy rebooted with CGI Lucy and Ricky. No!

To me, it doesn't beat the real thing and we take that for granted. It's more than one looks and moves. It's the nuances that makes that actor magical. That unpredictability that they came up with.
 
So far it's just for nostalgia. They're aren't trying to digitally resurrect the dead to replace real actors.
 
You say that now..but you know Hollywood...they don't know their breaking point..and everything has a breaking point..
 
it'll be like that Simone movie lol
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,554
Messages
21,759,145
Members
45,593
Latest member
Jeremija
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"