Agreed.

I agree. They are awesome. They did an even better job than the CGI effects they implemented for the character of Renesmee in Breaking Dawn/Twilight, which were considered cutting edge as well.

Maybe you need your eyes testing then. I mean, it's certainly impressive but it still doesn't look real... his wrinkles and folds under his eyes for instance look painted on and his skin overall seems to have the elasticity of a teenager.

***** I know it wasn't real from the moment I saw it for the first time but I was impress of how close it is for Peter Cushing and a real human being!

There were some people (as annotated in the video) who watched this and weren't aware it was CGI. I think we're unconsciously looking for differences because we know they're deceased actors. The job they did with the technology and lighting was, honestly, stunning.

It's confirmation bias. People know the actor is dead so they know what they're seeing on screen is fake and therefore can't bring themselves to believe it. Every little flaw will be extremely acentuated because of that.

not true. I had no idea the scene was going to happen and any older characters were going to be a part of it, and as soon as that scene happened, i felt something wasn't right and I was right. I went in a blank slate and that part was just unbearably bad.

steven andrew Well, it's not the same for everyone. Some people do find it easy to notice it's CGI than others. I am also an "exception" because I knew he was dead and it was CGI, and it still blew my mind and I thought it was amazingly well done. The thing is, "knowing it" does have an influence on most people.

Bruno Bessa Im sure it does. It just took me by surprise and I felt it was off from the first moment. There was something inhuman about motions and expressions. They even had good reference material and it still fell short.

steven andrew It's a very hard thing to do. As it is said in the video, we just know humans too well, so any "fake" human has to be incredibly convincing to trick us. We're not there yet, technologically. But Tarkin was, without a doubt, the best CGI human ever made up until this point. Maybe with time they will remaster these scenes as technology advances. Who knows.

Westworld, Ant-man, Cap 3. All WAY better than Tarkin.

Adam K Eh. That's a weak position. It can still look bad whilst a huge amount of work went into it. There are parts of Paul Walkers CG face in Fast 7 that look 100% convincing. There are others where it is super obvious and bad. Doesn't mean I am discrediting the world. It's hard work making a convincing human.

Its called the uncanny valley. Effort alone does not make something good.

Adam K The thing is, this is brand new technology. It may look fake at times but it's still astonishing to see how great they have it so far. Imagine how well this will be advanced 20 years from now.

Using that argument, a lot of work when into things like the Tacoma Narrows bridge, but was it good? No. it collapsed. Effort doesn't trump result. For all the effort in this, (and i have done digital modeling) this is a bad result that needed WAAAAAAY more time to get right. They missed the mark. I didn't watch the movie with advanced knowledge that there would be this level of digital work or even resurrected characters and soon as it popped on screen i cringed. It was like watching the Final Fantasy: Spirits With movie. Just not good.

True.

For certain more people would have bitched if they had used different actors as some are suggesting in these comments. Just look at the whining about Han Solo...

It's not a question of appreciating things. It's a question of making it right. When the technology is there. Few years back you could tell when ships were CGI and looked fake compared to models. Now, they don't. They are as crisp and real and as sharp as models. So I'm all for CG in this case. Now CG humans today look bad if not terrible in most scenes. Specially in close ups. Get it right, THEN use it. Before that, lay it to rest. It takes the audience out of the movie experience. Its like "LOOK HERE! A FAKE DIGITAL CHARACTER" in the middle of a great movie. Now...ten years from now, an ethical question will have to be debated if we should or should not use CG humans...risking the downfall of actors.

***** Aren't we all expressing opinions? But in some ways...it's like debating colours. Some point out a red colour others will nah...it's more like an orange. Some point a blue colour and someone will say nah...it's more of a turquoise...so is this fact or opinion? I would also add that...if it doesn't move or look realistic. How is it not terrible? How is it not bad? While on the other hand, who ever said the ships is Episode 4 back in 77 didn't look real? Who ever said that Frank Oz's puppetry of Yoda in Empire Strikes back looked bad? We all bought what we saw on the screen as real. And it's something that sometimes CGI fails to do. That's a fact. But when it does look seemless and real, it's movie magic at it's best.

Jean-Francois Joanisse You know there's little opportunity to get something right without using it, right? Everything needs to see some light of day in order to improve. And you clearly have no idea what you're arguing for and pulling points that you THINK make sense. The casualty of KZfaq comments... research. There's absolutely no way that CGI will threaten real actors, as CGI is quite hard and expensive to make. Regardless of technological advancements in the next 10 years, you will need an artist behind the wheel to create the CGI. Technology may make it easier to make it look realistic, but in no way shape or form decrease the actual workload of creating such graphics in the first place. It's not a easy task to even bring CGI to the `bad` that you claim Rogue One`s is. As an artist, I'm astounded by the fact that you don't even attempt to show some respect towards towards these talented artists. But, guessing by your comments, I doubt you would appreciate art in general either. If you want to make it right, ask yourself - right to who? you, or someone else? Also, as a programmer, you do know that no one will spend time (useful to actually improving it) tweaking technology that won't be used. It's equivalent to sitting around doing nothing. Human CGI is a completely separate deal from ship/object CGI, you can't use only one in the hope of a completely-different technology to improve. It's like saying developing cell phones will improve your desktop computer. As to the ethical question, I suggest you better consider if it's ethical for machine self-learning computers to replace literally every job that a human can occupy (which will possibly be able to create CGI replacing humans on its own, but at that point, every other job on the planet will be at risk already.)

So something is immune to criticism just cause someone said so? Ok lmao

Robert Angle She looked like an Xbox avatar :/

Robert Angle I disagree. It looks like Tarkin jumped out of a PS4, and Leia jumped out of a PS2.

Robert Angle Vlogs it was the opposite for me

Would have been nice to have seen what you're talking about but this video doesn't show a single clip of Leia, despite the video title suggesting this is all about Leia.

Tbh when I first see the film I thought leia was body double and Tarkin was just Tarkin.

this guy gets it

MyNameIsND lol

MyNameIsND Now you're tarkin!

Hah 😂

this would've been a hilarious line

It's an insult if they're using that person's likeness to do things they wouldn't have participated in if they were alive. Like using dead actors to sell products. It's an insult to their legacy, not them personally, that's why they need permission from the actor's estate before they're allowed to do this.

I'm sure Audrey Hepburn wouldn't be honoured to be used for selling chocolate.

I'm not talking about Tarkin specifically, as I'm sure he would have participated if he could have, but you said you didn't see how it could be an insult, and I was giving you an example. If, say, they'd had CG Peter Cushing dancing around naked and performing other indignities, then yeah, I'm sure his family would be horribly insulted.

In the case of Tarkin it's fine, but it's a slippery slope and shouldn't be done without careful consideration. Hepburn's family was probably happy just to get money.

It's an insult if they recreated someone in CGI just to sell products. Rogue One on the other hand needs Tarkin because he's a huge part of the Death Star Story.

My brother knew who they were and thought that they were look alike actors, he had no idea that they were CGI. I thought they were incredibly well done as well, made the movie so much better to see them again and match so well to A New Hope, even though I knew they were CGI at first glance, it was still great.

I think it's partly a generational thing as well. Having grown up during the early boom period of CGI in movies & video games, people of my generation (early 30's) have been almost trained to spot CGI. We've grown up watching that gradual evolution in technology & we've seen it succeed in some cases & fail in others, making us all the more sensitive when it comes to noticing when something isn't quite right because we know what to look for, we expect it & we actively look for it. Older people don't necessarily think like that & it therefore doesn't occur to them that an actor on screen might be anything other than what he or she seems & certainly not the reanimated features of someone who died more than 20 years ago...

I am just getting into Star Wars. When I watched Rogue One, I didn't even know that Peter Cushing had died, let alone that his character was re-created using CGI. Now that I know, I am VERY impressed that this kind of technology is even possible.

B. M. Your mom is old and no longer see week or in normal framerates.

Well, say what you want, but I didn't notice that Tarkin was CGI until I saw his face up close. Still, it's very impressive technology, something that we could only dream of in 2007, let alone when original trilogy was released.

same, i knew leia was cgi but didn't even notice tarkin was too until i rewatched the scene.

srsly???

the darkside of the force clouded your mothers vision my friend.

Bumblebert Star Wars fanboys losing their shit is a tradition that has existed since the Holiday Special. They complain about insignificant things to make them feel smarter and better even if they come off as raving lunatics.

And as a horror loon I thought it was great to see "him" again!

Because some people just love to bitch and moan...

Obviously a few bad apples which is all it takes to create a stink.

Cushing also stated multiple times that he wanted to be in the sequels.

The lighting in his eyes, and other small details of is face are off. Including the animation. It's still very recognizably uncanny valley. But as they've said in this video, making realistic CGI humans is one of the hardest things to do. They got pretty close, but the difficulty curve to complete realism is exponential in scale.

Nobody cares that it wasn't perfect. It was _believable_.

No. It has to be perfect. If you noticed anything wrong with it then it failed. You're crediting hard work and not the result which is completely backwards. I can spend all day making a shit painting. You gonna praise me for that?

+killboggins But it didn't fail. It was not even noticeable to Me. Not to mention that even if it wasn't perfect, You'd still not notice it thanks to the lighting.

The Zant General they will just say it's because you're stupid that you didn't notice and they're so smart because oh they noticed. never mind the fact they went in already knowing it was CGI.. oh but they're so smart.. cuz they knew beforehand.. that's like if i tell you a stock will increase so you bet on it then you go oh look at me im so smart.. no you're not.. it looked as close as fake can be and complaining about it is really stupid. why not complain about every puppet and CGI ever used in star wars? or just shut your mouth. it didn't look "terrible" it looked "amazing". why does everything have to be pass/fail? oh I barely noticed a little tiny something so fail.. oh I noticed a shitty puppet that didn't look real in episode 4 so the whole movie is a fail.. it's a movie bros...

Bringing back an old popular actor to a young age or a dead popular actor back to life with CGI technology will always draw viewers' attention and scrutiny no matter how good the job is. If the actors were unpopular, then chances are that you wouldn't have known it was a CGI work because this particular job was well done.

magnetmac1 that is true. That's something I forgot to mention. If you're completely new to the Star Wars universe, you'll probably never notice it is CGI.

IAmHawkeye316 Cgi paul walker was better

Ikr funny that Disney owns ABC and they are doing a report promoting how advanced ILM's (also owned by Disney technically) effects are

Totally agree though I am currently being flamed in comments for stating the same as a 3d artist ..

Don't you mean a ps4 hardware level render? The animation of a 3d model has nothing to do with what hardware it's rendered on. You obviously are totally ignorant as to how computer graphics in film are created. Blindly cynical. To respond directly, no, they didn't re-create Tarkin in Little Big Planet and After Effects it in.

Stop whining. A PS4 would never be able to render them in real time. Please do some research before trying to act competent in the field. They looked fine, and most people didn't even realize that they were full CGI

I almost think they should have hired Naughty Dog to do the facial animation. Uncharted 4 has the best facial animation I've ever seen, game or movie.

Agree. If we'd seen a glimpse of him, it may have been enough. Having said that, in the glimpse of Princess Leia at the end, I didn't think it looked very life-like either. Maybe they should keep the eyes of the real actors they lay the CGI on top of.

da5idnz I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been on screen as much as he was, just that his screen time might have been handled with more subtlety and his movements could have been slower, he blinked too much in a couple scenes.

For example at 2:39 he looks pretty damn close to real, because his movement is much slower and there's not as much eye movement.

You are right, animators solely are responsible for the fakeness of the final product. The model and texture look great.

the eye movement always gives it away

"...are they not?"

I forgot what character said that Argghhhhh

Sebastien O. Tarkin said that

The Scheffinator "Well, yes.."

***** Thank you, couldn't figure out the last part

They had more reff for Tarkin.

Tarkin was more of a main character. He was there throughout the entire movie, whereas Leia only had about 30 seconds. So there was more purpose to do well on Tarkin.

They both look like garbage but Leia was far more realistic, even the guys who worked on it said that as they put way more work into her...

SecretAgentMan00 I can agree on that

SecretAgentMan00 probably because Tarkin is older and requires more work on his face probably. and because he was in the movie more.

And everyone cringed when CRYlo ren took his helmet off

CoinOpTV Hey coin! And I agree 😃 Love your channel

CoinOpTV nope they didn’t ugh

They really wanted to get their name out there. Typical Disney

How do you think they got that access?

Lucasfilm was destroyed by Disney. Shame By the way, ABC is owned by Disney too.

They legally have to say that because the network this ran on is also owned by Disney

That's awesome YO! As soon as I saw Tarkin I started geekin out. And every time he popped up on screen ALL 3 times I saw ROGUE ONE I couldn't help but giggle and say with JOY "Fuckin Tarkin"!! The Cgi was Soo great, I honestly couldn't believe how beautiful he looked. I didn't expect to see him in the movie til that "BREATH" teaser a couple weeks before R1 dropped and still wasn't prepared to be blown away by his appearance.

No shit. I hope he's joking.

Ernie Essuah Mensah They are taking over the world ... Slowly, but surely ... The Empire will rise !

I do not mind, as long as they do not ruin our childhood with remakes and give me mickey ears :v

Ernest Essuah Mensah Welcome, now you are less ignorant. Disney, News Corp, Comcast, and Time Warner own almost everything we consume. 4 massive media conglomerates that can be dangerous if not checked.

Didn't even knew Disney owned ABC until the end of the video

...Odo is that you?!

Peter Miller cause people are dumb.

I don’t see why they can’t just use a new actor. It solves the issue of crappy makeup, and the creepy uncanny valley feeling of a CGI face (no matter how well made it might be.) Sure it means the character will look a little different from the original, but it’s really no different to theatre productions where many actors portray the same character over time, and that never bothers anyone. Much like theatre they can just recast the role to someone who fits the description, in fact the guy who played the stand-in for the CGI Tarkin during filming already looked a lot like him, and they used his voice in the film too. So why bother with CGI?

The way I see it, is that if you don't try it like this first, you don't really push the technology behind it. We kind of need to go through the uncanny valley before we can perfect the art of it

It's actually not. At least with a real human actor, people used to CGI can tell there's actually a person there on screen. Even if he looks different from the original, at least he looks real.

Really?! Interesting. I feel the opposite. Although I did like Tarkin's appearance some of the scenes were jarring. But I thought with just a couple seconds of Leia they did really well!

Voice Nerd I'm talking about watching him on my smartphone. In the big screen is more noticeable.

Dimitri Bitu ahh gotcha

Meanwhile on the big screen, seeing Tarkin next to real people was jarring and took me right out of the film. Absolutely bizarre that they didn't just cast someone else and use proesthetics and CGI.

Henry Hill I felt the exact same way. I could tell something was off while watching the movie. His movements were "smooth" across the screen.

Its not bad CGI, its just noticeable. it through me off when i first saw it, and I was more distracted trying to figure out if it was actually CGI than focusing on the story itself.

Marriage is bad!

@Joshua Ecker, yeah it was definitly noticable, especially when you have a "CGI"-character that has rather many scenes. It was still exceptional work and i did love to see Tarkin again. (obviously)

Chestosneako Inc Divorce is worse.

Not everybody has the same ability to tell the difference between real humans from impostors. Disney will probably be able to replace their screenwriters with next gen chatbots in a few years and only a few will complain.

U dumb?

He's been dead for two decades, surely that should have rung some alarm bells?

Noblesse Oblige Nigga

It kinda looks fake too

“Well then you are lost”

Joel Cardona - I got uncanny valley vibes from Leia as soon as she appeared but for whatever reason hadn't questioned Tarkin at all, maybe because his scenes weren't as brightly lit? idk but I find it interesting how different people react differently to the recreations. Pretty soon they'll have cgi people who're 100% indistinguishable from real actors.

That would probably even more obvious, since he had to look exactly like Peter was in Ep4

Dimitri Petrenko No, he did not have to look exactly like Peter. He did however have to look like a human being. For me, CGI-Tarkin does NOT cross the uncanny valley, and it's not very immersive, but irritating. :-/ Still, kudos to the artists involved!

Tek Jansen But he actually has to look EXACTLY like Tarkin in EP4 because the movies are at MOST a day away from eachother...

Tek Jansen yeah I think a replacement actor would have been fine. After all Ewan McGregor becomes Alec Guiness. Whats the problem

JurassicCollectables How is that not a problem? did you even read my comments? did you watch the movies? the story flows into eachother the same day, it would be a little fucking weird if a different face shows up if you would watch it in story order...

Obi-Wan Kenobi ahhhh General Kenobiii

Red and gold leader weren't CG. Just used old footage to drop them in there. Fantastic tie in tho!

Jean-Francois Joanisse well, yes, but for me watch Gold and Red Leaders was a fantastic surprise, makes me jump in the cinema!!!!

Also, Pignose and Scott

Pacmanman you mean Evazan and Ponda Babba?

I remember HelloGreedo calling one of them Cornelius. Any truth in that or is it a joke that's lost on me?

Obviously not close enough yet.

Han Solo well since it's a matter of capturing human expressions that's obviously very subjective. some people didn't even know he was a cgi character.

I agree. I give them thumbs up for that. Big time. I'm not sure the best way to do it was going CG tho.

dude there is no such thing, even if they had! they would need his voice actor too.

diogo santos How can you say there's no such thing and in the same sentence say the voice actor, Guy Henry, exists. They didn't hire him purely for his voice. A *real* person who looks close enough is better than a CGI creation that doesn't look real.

Close enough is not a standard in professional film making. People tend to want to get immerse with the story and character, and if they hired a "close enough" looking guy to replace the original actor in a previous movie, all you're gonna get is people complaining about why is the person different and ETC. Plus, these kinds of CGI work help push the boundaries of our CG technology. It's good to have challenge and to learn new things to keep progressing anyway.

SethMcFartlane the star wars saga is all about continuity, if tarkin had been a completly different man 2 hours before we again see him in a new hope it would have been far worse than actually recreating him digitally in a very good way

Eugene Miller Yeong "Close enough is not a standard in professional film making." It very much is. All the more evident under a video of a "close enough" CGI recreation of an actor. The original Palpatine was played by two different actors in Empire and Jedi. There are tons of examples of different actors playing the same character in different movies. People will get over it quickly. What they won't get over, particularly in a handful of years, is awful CGI. This film will fate as poorly as the effects in the prequels.

in the theatre i saw it at i didnt even notice Tarkin was animated and i had suspicion princess leia was

Shakheel George Yes and also ESPN I think.

and marvel, the muppets

Deric James yo

Disney owns everything.

they probably wont CGI Carrie Fisher in Episode 9 but if they did it would probably just be one scene and the technology would have improved by then

How about the young Arnold in the last Terminator movie fighting the real older Arnold? I thought that was done really well!!

Shawn It was only really done because it was a prequel. Tarkin is 100% absolutely vital to the creation of the Death Star. Not mentioning him would be really unfulfilling for Rogue One. I can see the grey area because he's dead, but his character was very important. I don't see it any different than another actor playing his role. Having another actor would be almost the same thing, as the actor would wear makeup and clothes to seem like Tarkin.

↑↑↑

.

execute order 66.

I don't object. I just didn't think it was believable.

I thought it was believable at first, but then after the movie I was like, "Wait, that actor should have died of old age by now, wow, he was totally CGI.

***** Except it's not.

+allluckyseven it is.

If it were... People wouldn't have noticed it is CGI.

allluckyseven If people didn't come into the movie knowing it's CGI, or knew that Cushing is long dead, they surely wouldn't notice.

The Zant General The X-wing fighters that were added from deleted scenes of the original movie still look real because they act like real people. Tarkin in RO doesn't. He barely moves. If you compare him in RO against the real Tarkin in ANH, you'll see a huge difference in performance. His model can be very accurate, but the animation isn't lifelike.

It's different when it's a live-action movie with the digital recreation of a dead man. They had to ask permission from Cushing's estate to go forward with the idea.

@@Skulldetta How is it different legally? Have you read every contract the actors signed?

@@IngolfLau I don't think you have. He DED. Even if they had the "right," I don't think they have the MORAL right. they did the right thing by asking first.

Have you read the credits when the movie ends?