>Within 5 years Hollywood will be making fully functional

>>80785083
>/tv/ will unironically defend this
Really? All I ever see is people bitching about this just like you did.

>>80785083
>Hollywood will be able to blackmail anyone
just fuck my future up senpai

Why wouldn't I?

If they have permission to use the likeness, the characters don't have the uncanny valley effect, and the voice is right, why the fuck would you be against it?

>>80785083
it would still be someone with a good voice

like mmmmmmmmmm grand moff

>>80785083
Indeed, actors will soon be begging to do a movie for 100,000 instead of being given millions as it will be a ton cheaper to hire some computer dudes to CGI someone instead of paying an actor

>>80785083
In the future, and with this technology, the truth will be completely subjective.

>>80785083
You're not paying attention to the important things OP.


>CG Marylin Monroe, Audrey Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor in hardcore porno.


Yes, I WILL defend this.

File: 1476413631737.jpg (122KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1200x675px

>yfw peter hackson is already building a replica Christopher Lee in his clone laboratory RIGHT NOW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEhvKl9_5bg

it isn't what he would have wanted bros

>>80785221
Literally everything influenced by man is subjective. Everything.

>>80785133
considering everyone with a networth high enough to warrant spending millions to blackmail has a phone surgically implanted in their anus, really, really stupid theory.

>>80785083
>leads

nah

but you will see them more in shit like Star Wars. especially with Carrie Fisher dying - will justify Disney making CGI versions of younger Mark Hamil, Harrison Ford, etc. characters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yooWvBMWowY

>>80785233
They basically accomplish that with makeup and other traditional effects except with actresses with better tits and better manager cunts than was medically possible in the originals' times.

>>80785257
>by man
You are thinking of woman.

>>80785279
>Star Wars. especially with Carrie Fisher dying

They literally said that they wouldn't do CGI of her anymore. Just making shit up to be pissed at.

>>80785410
Give it 20 years

>>80785410
>>80785453
i'm not pissed, just practical. they want Star Wars to be an extension of the whole MCU that made them billions. so they have to weigh options between hiring new actors to play OT-era versions of these characters, or just CGI-ing them.

but it depends on the extent of the roles. so for Rogue One, Tarkin was very minor and appeared for a few minutes. CGI'ing him wasn't a big gamble. but it does raise a question if you're doing Rebel era stuff, you are right it's more likely they'd just recast the younger version of these roles if these characters play a larger role.

Did they get consent from his family to use him like this? Or because he's a character already owned by Lucas and now Disney, they just went with it?

>>80785627
Yes they got consent, otherwise they would've just used Guy Henry + a ton of makeup

>>80785150
>the characters don't have the uncanny valley effect
It does, there's something wrong with your eyes.

They'll do it to cripple SAG's power. We'll see if the Writer's Guild stands with them.

>>80785083
He looks like he aged in reverse in the movies' timeline, kek.

>>80785167
>moff
wtf, worst sounding title in the multiverse

>>80785583
The pendulum, as always, will swing one way before going the other. We will see extreme CGI substitutions, it's a fact. But eventually we'll have slave-actors cloned from the original actors' genetic material, trained from birth to do nothing but perform the roles their originals made iconic. The public will resist both, but we'll find a middle ground.

Just think how much cheaper it will be to create digital versions of dead icons rather than paying real stars. People will pay for it, people have shitty taste.

File: life of pi whole of life.jpg (30KB, 843x403px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 843x403px

>>80785083
Why not defend it? Do you how many vfx companies get ripped off, and go bankrupt because studios, and filmmakers demanding more work than was bidded on?

>>80785150
>permission

This is the magic word.

After the Crispin Glover court case following Back to the Future 2, you need permission from the person to use their likeness.

Watch 'Congress' it's literally about that. But it shouldn't as the source material starts halfway through the movie

>Rebel Without A Cause 2: Electric Boogaloo
>The Godfather Part IV: Vito Corleone isn't actually dead and is now a power ranger

>>80785260
Is this a conspiracy theory or are you just saying that everyone who's anyone is basically chained to their smartphone?

>>80785083
even Rod Steiger??

>>80785690
it's not so bad in still photos, but when I see it in motion it takes me right out of the movie anytime they do this shit. it's your brain telling you something is wrong.

>>80788360
I'm clearly being completely literal. on 4chan.

>>80785083
All those millions of dollars and they couldn't get the aspect ratio right.

>>80788637
There are people here who unironically defend hydroplate theory.

>>80788649
You have no idea what aspect ratio is, do you?

>>80788620

I saw a clip of princess leia in one of the latest Star War jew gold films and couldn't believe they OKed it for the final release.

>>80785133
this technology already exists and it's way beyond the rendering videos stuff that hollywood does, i can't find the link myself but there was a video of a guy faking being trump in video with this technology, way better than rendering stuff because it's real time and it will eventually be very easy to use

>>80785257
Subjectivity is a spook. It doesn't exist.

>>80788714
>>80785133
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk

here it is lads

>>80785083
>/tv/ will unironically defend this
Defend what? You have to make an argument and your post is not an argument.

>>80785083
>Within 5 years Hollywood will be making fully functional CGI versions of actors who died in the 1950s as the leads in feature-length films
No they won't. Hollywood Stars have the ability to draw people in because of their public presence. People love Brad Pitt or Chris Pratt etc. Modern audiences don't care about some celebrity 70 years ago and won't be drawn to a CGI version of one.

>>80789677
That's because the big production companies have just being experimenting for now, when they go all out and start making movies full of dead stars then you can expect a big ass marketing campaign to make the people love it, and they will love it, and we'll get the Some Like it Hot Cinematic Universe

>>80789817
You can't make people care about some people who were popular 70 years ago. Does anyone give a fuck about vanilla ice or ... fuck I cant even name any movie stars who were big in the 50's. People just don't care about old stars.

>>80789986
>You can't make people care about some people who were popular 70 years ago
You can, or do you think that actors that are popular nowadays achieved that only due to their acting skills? Marketing can make the general consumer care about the shittiest thing, just look at how everyone suddenly loves Marvel comics characters or Star Wars after Disney decided to pump money into them

>>80790091
>Star Wars after Disney decided to pump money into them
I mean to be fair Star Wars was already fucking gigantic.

>>80789986
You can by producing a series of holograms and robots of the trademarked likeness that are far more interactive than a single celebrity with a limited amount of time that most people will never meet could ever be.

File: Her-1-1024x576[1].jpg (126KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1024x576px

>>80790142
Sounds familiar.

>>80790091
I think they maintain their popularity by staying in the publics notice. Doing interviews, talkshows and other media things. Think about why Jennifer Lawrence was so big a few years ago, because of how goofy and lolrandom she was right? People look up her interviews on youtube, follow her on twitter and instagram, you can't have this sort of attention for a CGI character.

>>80790142
People think its fine to obsess over other people, celebrity culture is pretty rabid these days, but people think its pathetic for a person to obsess over a program like >>80790185 his character.

There's just no way CGI charcaters replace actual celebrities.

>>80785083
>in 10 years we would need actors anymore

>>80787758
What ? next you'll say mofferences are the worst thing that came out of EU ?

>>80790250
>you can't have this sort of attention for a CGI character
Why not, why couldn't a marketing company a bunch of wacky shit like what Donald Trump tweets into a fictional character?

People will say they think celebrity worship is pathetic, but they will still obsess over something like Tay if it is compelling and interactive enough.

>>80790663
Well screencap this thread and come back in 5 years so you can argue with me some more.

But how will we get new blood? We would never have Ryan Gosling or Fassbender or Cooper if they could CGI Brad Pitt

>>80785083
At least they will shut up about their shitty opinions

>>80785083
Just imagine the possibilities though. Clark Gable starring in Paranormal Activity 9, Heath Ledger in the latest Marvel Netflic productions...

>>80790737
There are already Massive Anime Celebrities in Japan regularly doing concerts, though, why do we need to wait 5 years for the discussion and how does CG over Cartoon Animation change anything?

did everyone notice how poorly written his dialogue was?

that was much more jarring than the shitty CG

the real actor would have been able to deliver his lines better, or just say something completely different

>>80791135
>did everyone notice how poorly written his dialogue was?
Out of all the things wrong with Rebel One I did not specifically notice this one.

Was Leia at the end of Rogue One CGI?

>>80791234
No, the actress is famous for how well she held up.

>>80791259
Yeah, good genes.. and makeup

>>80785083
If it means getting new Alan Rickman movies, I'm cool with it. But the bigger problem will be getting the voices right.

>>80791135
Not nearly as jarring as Vader being sarcastic.

>>80790803
Oh you sweet, deluded child. I'm already seeing dead celebs being used as mouthpieces for (((approved))) opinions.

>>80791322
There are Vader imitators that would've done a better job than Earl Jones did in Rogue 1, if you heard that. A close approximation is certainly possible with good enough scouting. If you can get a country (of retards, sure) to have all their movies translated and all big actors played by the same voice actor for 20 years, you can probably convince the average joe that a voice belongs to the actor you're seeing.

>>80790250
>you can't have this sort of attention for a CGI character.
Hatsune Miku says hi

>>80791072
To be fair being able to recreate Heath Ledger using realistic CGI for The Dark Knight Rises would have been amazing

>>80789986
Why are you so fucking retarded that you think it HAS to be used only on 70' actors you cocksucked dicklet cumslurping ass?

>>80788771
Combine that with this and it's unstoppable. Anyone can be anyone

https://youtu.be/I3l4XLZ59iw