the "anti age treatments on films" thread

[spoRv]

Valeyard, what I wanted to mean is that deaging an actor/actress because he/she must play a role as him/herself, but younger (or never aged, like in this case) it's another story in comparison to deaging only to cover the actor/actress age... for example, for Stark in an Iron Man movie (or Avenger, can't remember), or in Guardians of the Galaxy 2, it is a "fair" use of the deaging process - it is the modern version of the make-up; it is "fair" because it's requested by the script.

But, digital deaging actors just to let them seem younger, is not that fair... what I mean is, we all know (more or less) that previous scenes are made using CGI, but (almost) nobody knows where actors are deaged... the next thing? S1M0NE-like actors, completely made in CGI; not a fantasy, just let the technology grows a bit, let's say a decade or two... this gives me goosebumps!

[PDB]

The ethics are about to get even muddier because thanks to the deepfakes (beware looking this up, very NSFW) anyone can now put anyone in any movie:



Top is the BD which took hundreds of man and machine hours, bottom was one person with hours on a computer using neural learning. Democratization of tools is always great but there are some murky things done with this tool.

More:

[deleted user]

The ethics are about to get even muddier because thanks to the deepfakes (beware looking this up, very NSFW) anyone can now put anyone in any movie:



Top is the BD which took hundreds of man and machine hours, bottom was one person with hours on a computer using neural learning. Democratization of tools is always great but there are some murky things done with this tool.

More:

This is awesome, just my type of unethical enjoyment, haha. Adobe has also come out with a voice faking tool, although it's not publicly released yet.

I think it's fair to say that soon you won't be able to trust any videos of any person saying something.

[Valeyard]

Tarkin and Leia were terrible. I thought I was the only one who felt that way back then; glad to be among equal-minded. They made so much advertising about what a great job they did, but it was really not very impressive. Seeing Leia at the end made me almost wanna throw up (Uncanny Valley sickness?).

Nah, they ruined what was otherwise a decent movie. Well CGI Leia didn't ruin it since she was only in one scene, but CGI Tarkin was awful.

Yeah the VFX artists will always claim they did a good job, because after all that's their business... all they contribute to the film is the VFX. They could have got away with using Tarkin sparingly in wide shots, but not overusing him in close-ups so that each time the imperfections get more, and more obvious. The same thing would have happened with Rachael in Blade Runner 2049 if they'd used her more and more, even just viewing the VFX reel with the recreations of the 4 original Blade Runner scenes makes the imperfections in the CGI all the more obvious. The used her in just one scene and she looked OK, but on repeated viewing you will notice the problems with just that one shot.