Would you be interested in seeing a digitally rejuvenated Sean Connery play Bond one more time?

2456

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,315
    It might be interesting for something like photo novels but not a whole movie on its own.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Maybe in 15-20 years time.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489

    Do this for a video game—like FRWL—but not a live-action film.

    Why are people OK with the one, and not the other?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,848
    I'm not OK with either. Let the dead rest.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    But you would know it wasn't really Connery. And the eyes would be lifeless and inhuman like with Rogue One. It's one thing to do that with a supporting character. But your lead? And especially one who should be emotive and charismatic?

    Do this for a video game—like FRWL—but not a live-action film.

    Even if they faithfully recapture his likeness and essence completely, wouldn't we still want the Bond legacy to move forward? To embrace new actors and new interpretations?[/quote)

    But you would know it wasn't really Connery..... Er, yes because he's nearly 90 years old.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423

    Do this for a video game—like FRWL—but not a live-action film.

    Why are people OK with the one, and not the other?
    Because accordingly to the most, one is a video game so a 3D animated character won't bother them, it's a "stinkin' game" anyway, but the other is film... well, you know DAD, don't you? Or slight bit of things that appeared blurry of one was the parachute in Rome in SP people annoyingly nitpick and nag about?

    Yeah. That's why.
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    Birdleson wrote: »
    CountJohn wrote: »
    No way. CG Leia and Tarkin creeped me out in Rogue One.

    I'm glad someone agrees with me (actually a couple did). I find it grossly insulting to the life and work of an artist, particularly a dead one, to recreate them digitally for a film. Like they're that expendable, or their talent so easily reproduced through code. I am adamantly against it, regardless of what licensing the heirs or the estate agrees to.
    Precisely. Very well said.

    I can understand using technology to make an actor look younger when that actor is actually playing in a film. Like they did with RDJ in Captain America: Civil War. But creating a 3D model of an old or dead actor from scratch and equipping it with a sound-alike is something completely different. As @Birdleson said, it's insulting to the actor's talent and creativity and, by extension, supports the idea that humans are completely expendable and their individual talents and creative ideas are insignificant and unnecessary.

    Do this for a video game—like FRWL—but not a live-action film.

    Why are people OK with the one, and not the other?
    Because accordingly to the most, one is a video game so a 3D animated character won't bother them, it's a "stinkin' game" anyway, but the other is film... well, you know DAD, don't you? Or slight bit of things that appeared blurry of one was the parachute in Rome in SP people annoyingly nitpick and nag about?

    Yeah. That's why.
    Games don't require actor performances. By definition, games rely on computer-generated models, while films rely on humans. Just because a 3D model has the likeness of an actor it doesn't mean that the actor performs in the game. Take for example Nightfire. They used Brosnan's likeness for Bond, but that doesn't mean Brosnan acted as Bond. They just scanned his face and created an animated model. It can be argued that Brosnan did give a performance in Everything or Nothing, since he gave his voice, but as Nightfire proves, you don't really need the original actor to give his voice in order to create a believable character and a good video game.

    On the other hand, films rely exclusively on the actors' creativity, talent and acting skills. That's the huge difference between video games and films, and that's why I don't really mind seeing old actors rejuvenated in games.

    Having said that, I'm not really sure about having dead actors in video games...
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    @gt007, actors do more than giving their likenesses and lending their voices to characters in video games since 10 years ago. Motion capture acting is the method, and their facial expressions are scanned as they act out the scene.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Not really keen on the idea and don't think they'll ever fully capture the origin even with perfect CGI.

    The stuff in Rogue One looked a bit ropey to me although it bothers me less in a Star Wars movie than it would in a bond film
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Sam Mendes directs a digitally rejuvenated Connery in MUM, DAD, SCOTLAND.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Sam Mendes directs a digitally rejuvenated Connery in MUM, DAD, SCOTLAND.
    Also known as in other countries Flashbacks of a Scotsman with a Tattoo
  • gt007gt007 Station G
    Posts: 1,182
    @gt007, actors do more than giving their likenesses and lending their voices to characters in video games since 10 years ago. Motion capture acting is the method, and their facial expressions are scanned as they act out the scene.
    Motion capture is not a lossless conversion of reality to 3D models. You don't get 100% of the actor's original performance. You have to rely on the hardware, the software, the developers, etc.

    And even if that wasn't the case, I doubt someone in their late 80s, like Sean Connery, would be able and/or willing to do motion capture either for a film or a video game.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    gt007 wrote: »
    @gt007, actors do more than giving their likenesses and lending their voices to characters in video games since 10 years ago. Motion capture acting is the method, and their facial expressions are scanned as they act out the scene.
    Motion capture is not a lossless conversion of reality to 3D models. You don't get 100% of the actor's original performance. You have to rely on the hardware, the software, the developers, etc.

    And even if that wasn't the case, I doubt someone in their late 80s, like Sean Connery, would be able and/or willing to do motion capture either for a film or a video game.
    Yes, but I am sure people can deliver it when they are given the material to work with. Judging by how great they want it to appear, I doubt any license holder would provide the IP rights to the wrong people to handle its development, whether a film or a video game. Rockstar has been doing these for a decade now, and L.A. Noire is a proof that wonders can happen. Check out the behind the scenes videos. Even with Hitman: Absolution, Powers Boothe had to act out his piece in motion capture. It's not as laid back as you think it is.

    As for the 86 year old Sean Connery, we won't have to worry about him. They will merely use his early years likeness, because any studios know these days that accuracy is a requirement, so they'll hire the best vocal impersonator and even an actor who excels in his facial expressions to match that of Connery's will find a way to the right compartment to beam the spotlight. Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher both were wonderfully rendered in Rogue One. Imagine what could the tech give us in 15-20 years time. It's not as far fetched as you think it is. 'You' as in people generally, of course.
  • At this point in time no... Though the technology in ten years not sure anyone would know the difference.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,848
    If certain locations are increasingly made with CGI and now actors are being recreated with the technology, in what sense is it still a live action film?
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 6,432
    We live in a simularcrum age, Art is dead only the replication Art exists.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    We live in a simularcrum age, Art is dead only the replication Art exists.
    Sadly, there is truth to this. It's mostly reboot, remake, rehash.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    jake24 wrote: »
    We live in a simularcrum age, Art is dead only the replication Art exists.
    Sadly, there is truth to this. It's mostly reboot, remake, rehash.
    True true.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    jake24 wrote: »
    We live in a simularcrum age, Art is dead only the replication Art exists.
    Sadly, there is truth to this. It's mostly reboot, remake, rehash.
    True true.
    Eh?
  • It's sad as franchise dictates meaning familiarity of product sells, not much room for original thinking
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    gt007 wrote: »
    @gt007, actors do more than giving their likenesses and lending their voices to characters in video games since 10 years ago. Motion capture acting is the method, and their facial expressions are scanned as they act out the scene.
    Motion capture is not a lossless conversion of reality to 3D models. You don't get 100% of the actor's original performance. You have to rely on the hardware, the software, the developers, etc.

    And even if that wasn't the case, I doubt someone in their late 80s, like Sean Connery, would be able and/or willing to do motion capture either for a film or a video game.
    Yes, but I am sure people can deliver it when they are given the material to work with. Judging by how great they want it to appear, I doubt any license holder would provide the IP rights to the wrong people to handle its development, whether a film or a video game. Rockstar has been doing these for a decade now, and L.A. Noire is a proof that wonders can happen. Check out the behind the scenes videos. Even with Hitman: Absolution, Powers Boothe had to act out his piece in motion capture. It's not as laid back as you think it is.

    As for the 86 year old Sean Connery, we won't have to worry about him. They will merely use his early years likeness, because any studios know these days that accuracy is a requirement, so they'll hire the best vocal impersonator and even an actor who excels in his facial expressions to match that of Connery's will find a way to the right compartment to beam the spotlight. Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher both were wonderfully rendered in Rogue One. Imagine what could the tech give us in 15-20 years time. It's not as far fetched as you think it is. 'You' as in people generally, of course.

    Peter Cushing CGI looked like a Toy Story/ Polar Express character in Rogue One. A CGI Bond is an abomination.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Not to me it isn't. And I don't get that "fake CGI" rant some people keep throwing with biased templates. The "fake parachute" complaint in Spectre that "took some people out of the film" struck me as nonsensical at best I couldn't take them seriously at all.

    I'm not saying Cushing and Fisher looked too real. But, they were close. And I didn't mind them. Perhaps not now, but in the future, maybe the next decade or five years more on it, I don't mind a CGI Bond at all.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,848
    Not to me it isn't. And I don't get that "fake CGI" rant some people keep throwing with biased templates. The "fake parachute" complaint in Spectre that "took some people out of the film" struck me as nonsensical at best I couldn't take them seriously at all.

    I'm not saying Cushing and Fisher looked too real. But, they were close. And I didn't mind them. Perhaps not now, but in the future, maybe the next decade or five years more on it, I don't mind a CGI Bond at all.

    Whereas I am horrified by the concept. The day we have a CGI Bond the franchise will be dead to me. Not interested.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It doesn't have to be the Eon Productions Bond film series. Someday somehow, Bond will fully enter public domain.
  • Posts: 4,325
    Not to me it isn't. And I don't get that "fake CGI" rant some people keep throwing with biased templates. The "fake parachute" complaint in Spectre that "took some people out of the film" struck me as nonsensical at best I couldn't take them seriously at all.

    I'm not saying Cushing and Fisher looked too real. But, they were close. And I didn't mind them. Perhaps not now, but in the future, maybe the next decade or five years more on it, I don't mind a CGI Bond at all.

    Whereas I am horrified by the concept. The day we have a CGI Bond the franchise will be dead to me. Not interested.

    We had one in Die Another Day!
  • It doesn't have to be the Eon Productions Bond film series. Someday somehow, Bond will fully enter public domain.

    Off-topic, but I'd like to know: is there any way to prevent Bond from entering public domain, cinematically?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    It doesn't have to be the Eon Productions Bond film series. Someday somehow, Bond will fully enter public domain.

    Off-topic, but I'd like to know: is there any way to prevent Bond from entering public domain, cinematically?

    Yes, kill all mankind.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It doesn't have to be the Eon Productions Bond film series. Someday somehow, Bond will fully enter public domain.

    Off-topic, but I'd like to know: is there any way to prevent Bond from entering public domain, cinematically?
    That, I don't know. Although, I heard people saying Eon can attempt and trademark the character as their own.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 4,597
    I think many movie fans have an issue with CGI as they are judging it on what they have seen rather than what they will see or what future generations will see. As someone whose first video game was Pong, its very easy for me to extrapolate the progression. Eventually "perfect" CGI will be a reality and we will see future generations of movie fans treating this as completely normal.
    The interesting question is will CGI be used to recreate human actors or will we see digital actors instead? On that basis, could we finally see the perfect James Bond ? (I know some think SC was that person) but the opportunities of creating a digital character to fit the role rather than finding a human to play the role will be interesting.
    In the long term, movie acting will die , or at least be something relegated to art house movies IMHO
    Good scripts will always be the big factor rather than the quality of the CGI and its another topic worthy of discussion re will we see CG scripts?
  • Yeah, I mean look at what happened to dinosaurs. Jurassic Park comes around with ILM and suddenly all the dinosaur roles in film are given to CG.
Sign In or Register to comment.