Is this believable to you?

Problem is that they are still treating it as an animated character so he moves a bit too much to emote what he needs to convey.
Way too many facial movements, nods, bobs and such so the entire thing is overplayed.

In this case it is especially noticable since Tarkin generally didn't move a lot while speaking.

The "acting" needs to be way more subdued.

>>80951939
Damn you hit the nail right on the head. Thoroughly impressed with this post.

Even from the still frame it looks uncanny, like a wax figure.

>>80951837
It was uncomfortably distracting.

Even as a diehard Star Wars fan (the kind that used to get beat up for being a Star Wars nerd in the early 90s) I would be much more comfortable with a recast than the CGI.

Leia's CGI at the end wasn't nearly as bad, but I guess that's because it was just the face they worked on.

>>80951837

It was rubbery at parts but undeniably Tarkin and that's what mattered to me at the end

>>80951837
What gives it away is the mouth movements. CG faces are believable if they don't talk.

>>80951837
It looks like garbage, almost ruined the whole movie. There's thousands of old men who look exactly like tarkin and thousands of make up artists who would of done a better job than this. No excuse.

>>80953211
It's the maya light effects, the gamma it's high and looks to shiny to be human flesh.

>>80951837
I always feel like when they do things like this, they try and put too many details in the face to really sell that it's an actual human.

He looks like someone from Ratatouille

>>80951939
animators just cant be actors as well. why dont they just use mo cap and cgi over it so they don't fuck up the expressions and shit.

>>80951837
It looks like mind-bogglingly good graphics out of a new Call of Duty cinematic trailer.

>>80951837
The first successful CG human animated will be of a CGI gook. There faces aren't as expressive, they're flatter and have less detailed features, they have dead eyes. Many already have uncanny valley to begin with.

>>80952651
me too. updooted both posts

>>80951837
>Is this believable to you?
not even close, also why did they give him all those bits of wispy hair?

>>80953665
>dead eyes
look im autistic, i never understood this meme, eyes aren't expressive, they all look the same, its the muscles around the eyes that make eyes convey emotions right?

does anyone actually read anything from the actual eyes themselves?

>>80953375
>why dont they just use mo cap and cgi over it
they did

File: 1490520150022.jpg (17KB, 460x423px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 460x423px

>>80953375
This is a good question. Damn I like this thread so far. Mo cap would have done this more justice. I wonder this level of cgi amd mo cap will be merged in movies.

Maybe it's because I watched it in 3D, but I didn't even realize he was CGI when seeing it in theaters

A number of people who don't know the original trilogy said they didn't notice that he was CGI until someone told them after they saw the movie, which is pretty high praise. We all know he's dead so we are watching every eyebrow quiver, we don't do that with the other scenes. All things considered it was pretty fucking good.

>>80953965
see
>>80953916

File: 1429693771140.jpg (24KB, 488x488px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 488x488px

>>80951939
Wrong the problem is fans know it's animated so they know he's dead and know it's animation.

Any 10 year old would think it was a real person. The only detractors are fully grown man-babies.

File: Guy_Henry_Tarkin-Rogue_One.png (1MB, 1280x1008px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x1008px

>>80953375
>>80953965

>>80953887
I always thought the dead eyes thing was because the pupils are really black/dark compared to green, etc

ie dead eyes

funny though because eyes become milky whitish when the person is dead/blind

>>80954072
oh shit.

then why >>80951939 is this still the case? did they add extra facial movements on top of his performance or maybe the guy was just overacting.

>>80951837
I called it out the first 2 seconds this thing appeared. Same old shitty kid's animated CG tier animations.

>>80954139
They did some of it by hand to better match Peter Cushing's original performance.

>>80954072
Why do they feel the need to clean things up so much? It just ends up sterilizing it. The way the actual collar meets is uneven and theres a crease where the collar meets the chest but in the CG version, its fucking immaculately perfect. I feel like they need to let the imperfections in.

>>80954174
>shitty kid's animated CG tier animations.
In English, doc.

>>80954202
"Disney"
"Pixar"
"Dreamworks"

Relates back to >>80951939