deceased stars reborn and, old stars renewed?

[rainingcrow]

The article is here

http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/news/514-a-star-is-reborn-how-hollywood-magicians-will-raise-the-dead

and the discussion... How would you choose to utilize this in comic book adaptations?

Christopher reeve reprise superman from beyond the grave?
De age Robert Redford to enlist him as Captain America?
Bring heaths joker back?

go.

 

[GL1]

no go. Not the actor's voice, not the actor's performance. No dead are being raised here, except for cameos, like Arnie in T:Salvation. But he's not dead, so nvm.

It might be interesting to see older actors appear opposite younger versions of themselves in time travel/cloning plots, and I have to admit... having Bruce Lee in a fight scene would make nearly any martial arts movie 100% better... but beyond that, I don't see that going very far on its own.

 

[GL1]

double postage... ugh...

 

[Octoberist]

although Paul Newman as Hal Jordan would be awesome.

 

[rainingcrow]

and why?

If the negotiating parties are the family of the deceased, you could be sure that the role would be treated respectfully. (one would hope)

Ya gotta admit that a young Robert Redford as cap, would be amazing... And if it looked so real that you couldn't tell...

And then of course there is the next step... infinite sequels, without changing stars. Robert downy junior still appearing as iron man in 2045, christian bale remaining the dark knight for next 100 yrs...

And then the possibility of something altogether new. Complete realism of entire digital actors. A director cant find the right look in a star? Do the motion capture himself and create an actor to purely embody the character.

We've already seen shows like sanctuary pull off completely digital sets... when do we hit the point where the digital world and digital actors... can be controlled within the story by the viewer? On one of those new 3d tv's perhaps?

Lol c'mon get creative with it.

 

[The Question]

In none of these cases would the actors be giving a performance. It's just animation, and all the talent involved would come from the sound editors and animators. The only point in making the photorealistically animated Superman look and sound exactly like Christopher Reeves is either as an homage or a gimmick. It wouldn't be Reeves playing the role.


Also, the aliens from Avatar still looked like CGI.

 

[SuperFerret]

CGI will always look like CGI, and this "Uncanny Valley" will never be bridged. Though I do find it funny that some people seem excited about this, but will also vehemently oppose a big screen animated adaption of their favorite comic book properties.

 

[GL1]

CGI will always look like CGI, and this "Uncanny Valley" will never be bridged. Though I do find it funny that some people seem excited about this, but will also vehemently oppose a big screen animated adaption of their favorite comic book properties.

Perhaps not for the discerning, but at no point did I notice the CGI of Benjamin Button... except when they tried to make him look younger. I'd wager the vast majority of people did not. As CGI improves the number of "discerning" will continue to decrease... until it's just you.

But the Uncanny Valley is not about looking real, per se, it's about not being revolting for being a permutation: Teddy Bears are more attractive than Zombies, for instance. In that sense, the Uncanny Valley has definitely been bridged with the photorealistic CGI that we see in nearly every videogame. Unless you believe that's on the abstract side of the Uncanny Valley.

 

[SuperFerret]

Suspending your disbelief is different than the CGI looking real. Call me old fashioned, but I hope that CGI and video games never become completely photorealistic. I'm also against unnecessary use of CGI when practical effects are able to do the job (i.e. using CGI to age Brad Pitt when make up has done the same).

 

[rainingcrow]

well, the cartoons get their performances right most of the time... So a realistically animated performance sounds just as good to me. I mean just think of some of your favorite cartoons, same voice performances, same stories, same viewing angles even, but looking real...

 

[The Question]

A big problem I have with CGI is how unnecessary it often is. Look at Avatar. Make up and camera tricks to make the actors look bigger would have looked better and been less expensive. CGI is a wonderful too, but in a lot of cases they only use it to prove that they can.

 

[SuperFerret]

well, the cartoons get their performances right most of the time... So a realistically animated performance sounds just as good to me. I mean just think of some of your favorite cartoons, same voice performances, same stories, same viewing angles even, but looking real...

Cool.
Cool.
Meh.
Lame.

 

[rainingcrow]

well Its not like all the stars arent half cg when we see then nowadays anyway. Maybe not so much in the movies, but on the magazine covers etc... when photoshop takes 20 lbs off the average star before we ever see the shot... along with their scars, blemishes and acne... virtually everyone has had work done, and I can easily name 5 stars that look like they have plastic skin... I'm not against simply creating fake stars.

High end animation sounds preferable to Lindsay Lohan or megan fox any day of the week. Maybe we could replace channing tatum altogether.

 

[The Question]

What do magazine covers have to do with anything?

Anyway, I have nothing against CGI films, but "casting" dead stars with CGI and sound editing... is lame. First of all, it won't look real. Not completely. The aliens in Avatar, while beautifully rendered, didn't look real, and it's harder to fake an actual human than someone who isn't supposed to look human. Second, it won't be them. It won't be Christopher Reeve playing Superman, it will be animators making an animated Superman that looks like Christopher Reeve. He won't be giving a performance or getting into the character, because there's no actor. There's not even really a voice actor anymore. It would be a gimmick, simple as that.

 

[rainingcrow]

true, (and magazine covers are just a commentary on how fake our "real" stars are already)

The tech improves every day. Its only a matter of time before animation reaches the unidentifiable point... So when it does and our only limits are creativity... stuff Like this is bound to pop up.

My desire for this technology would be to keep characters consistent, more than actors performances.

Its true that it wouldnt be Christopher reeve, or his performance... but to some director somewhere... It would be their way of bringing back the superman image from their childhood.

We've already begun going back into films and series inserting "new improved" effects... How long is it before we go back into those same films and animate over the originals, upgrade the film stock, clarify character interactions, etc... until the only original left is the voice overs.

A fully digital realization of a character could keep consistency in a series. And give the director performances they could literally only imagine before.

I give it 6 years before we see the first digitally created A list star.

 

[Octoberist]

i think the main problem with the potential of bring back 'dead' stars is that we can never duplicate their souls. They'll end up being cheap imitations or parodies, no matter how 'real' they can get.

 

[Octoberist]

true, (and magazine covers are just a commentary on how fake our "real" stars are already)

The tech improves every day. Its only a matter of time before animation reaches the unidentifiable point... So when it does and our only limits are creativity... stuff Like this is bound to pop up.

My desire for this technology would be to keep characters consistent, more than actors performances.

Its true that it wouldnt be Christopher reeve, or his performance... but to some director somewhere... It would be their way of bringing back the superman image from their childhood.

We've already begun going back into films and series inserting "new improved" effects... How long is it before we go back into those same films and animate over the originals, upgrade the film stock, clarify character interactions, etc... until the only original left is the voice overs.

A fully digital realization of a character could keep consistency in a series. And give the director performances they could literally only imagine before.

I give it 6 years before we see the first digitally created A list star.

i think what you're saying is idealistic but naive.

 

[The Question]

true, (and magazine covers are just a commentary on how fake our "real" stars are already)

But that has nothing to do with the actual performances, which is the main point of the discussion.

The tech improves every day. Its only a matter of time before animation reaches the unidentifiable point... So when it does and our only limits are creativity... stuff Like this is bound to pop up.

My desire for this technology would be to keep characters consistent, more than actors performances.

Its true that it wouldnt be Christopher reeve, or his performance... but to some director somewhere... It would be their way of bringing back the superman image from their childhood.

We've already begun going back into films and series inserting "new improved" effects... How long is it before we go back into those same films and animate over the originals, upgrade the film stock, clarify character interactions, etc... until the only original left is the voice overs.

A fully digital realization of a character could keep consistency in a series. And give the director performances they could literally only imagine before.

I give it 6 years before we see the first digitally created A list star.

The thing is, that would be lame. Going back and digitally remastering old movies is just a gimmick. Having a CGI actor who looks and sounds just like a dead actor is just a gimmick. A digitally created A list star is a gimmick, and also serves no purpose (why, if you have animators, would you re-use the same character model for different films?).

 

[Octoberist]

exactly. who cares how real it looks. it's all about the performaces. if we brought back Bogart, we're just gonna do what we think he would do if he was still living but man, that's not real. you can't predict a person's emotions or method of acting. then it becomes an impression not a performance.

 

[rainingcrow]

well you still need a motion capture at best... so someone is still performing, someone is still acting. But they wouldn't need looks, or to be hounded like celebrities... just talent.

As far as the soul argument... I cant even get into that. I'm one of those sick f**ks who is pro cloning, pro choice, pro genetic engineering and believe that self awareness is what constitutes a soul, not a heartbeat... But I am anti credit and anti automobile.

there are maybe at best 3 films a year that can even attempt calling themselves original, or not employing as many gimmicks as possible. That's what all the ads and toys and s**t are anyway. Its a business.

Naive is to think that people wont employ every chance they can to turn a profit, be that thru exploitation of cheap imitation or not.

 

[rainingcrow]

oh and if it were all about performances... why would any of us even know the name Halle Berry?

 

[The Question]

I think the point is, if they recreate Christopher Reeve with CGI, it still ain't Christopher Reeve. He's not giving a performance. It's either an animator or a completely different actor who's talent is shining through. Thus, there's no point in making it look and sound like Christopher Reeve, except for being a gimmick.

 

[rainingcrow]

true.. But If they did a complete CG and he just happened to bear a striking resemblance to Reeves... I wouldn't object to watching it. (in theory anyway, honestly I didn't care much for the older superman movies... But reeve does make a good icon)

what I would personally be psyched about is for someone with the right kind of presence and ability voicing and portraying a character that they don't necessarily look like. Pair that with a CG animation that looks the part without appearing animated...

specifically picture this

One creation... perfect build and physique, a face that looks like a 23 yr old Robert Redford, (not saying it is... just happens to look like) a voice like Mark Harmon, and movement like Brad Pitt.

All combined into the perfect Captain America.

no john krasinski, or channing tatum, no regret in a bad casting choice... and best of all No stain on the character. The voice isnt the character, nor the performer under it... If one or even five of the people involved in the production were to get smeared across the tabloids busted in scandal... the icon goes unscathed.

The voice actors can be replaced with decent imitation, the body movements can be stored in data... and the character out of time, becomes timeless himself.

make A star out of the character, instead of using a star to make the character.

We all have cartoons we like... and we've all seen some disappointing adaptations. what If we can make our animation look real?

 

[Octoberist]

the voice isn't the character..nor the performer under it?

I'm sorry this is a movie where the performance makes or breaks the character.
And no, I won't compare Mickey Mouse to a real livingperson like Robert Redford.

and in the end, what makes a good movie? the movie has to have a good story, good performances, and most of all, an earnest soul. Not saying that an animated film can't achieve it and it has by Disney and Miyazkazi. But if you said "hey, let's replace real life with ANIMATION, instead of seeing animation as a stylistic choice or medium, then I object to it.

 

[Octoberist]

the voice isn't the character..nor the performer under it?

I'm sorry this is a movie where the performance makes or breaks the character.
And no, I won't compare Mickey Mouse to a real livingperson like Robert Redford.

and in the end, what makes a good movie? the movie has to have a good story, good performances, and most of all, an earnest soul. Not saying that an animated film can't achieve it and it has by Disney and Miyazkazi. But if you said "hey, let's replace real life with ANIMATION, instead of seeing animation as a stylistic choice or medium, then I object to it.