[HN Gopher] Attention, Hollywood: De-Aging Isn't Working, So Ple...
___________________________________________________________________
Attention, Hollywood: De-Aging Isn't Working, So Please Stop Using
It
Author : marban
Score : 45 points
Date : 2023-05-20 15:47 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (variety.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (variety.com)
| mpalmer wrote:
| Yeah, they're not going to stop. They get better every time, and
| the better it gets, the more flexibility they have.
|
| Soon enough the results will be sufficiently believable that
| actors/celebrities will be selling the right to use their image
| and voice for a role in a movie without ever actually being on
| camera.
| olivertaylor wrote:
| Or 20 years from now... "would you like 45 year old Tom Cruise
| in your movie? No problem, just pay his estate $20M."
|
| Also, talent agencies have been paying for 3d scans of their
| top talent for years, just to have banked in case anyone should
| need it. I would guess that all the A list actors plan on
| getting scanned every 5 years so they can be in a movie at any
| age.
| rgovostes wrote:
| This is the plot of "The Congress" with Robin Wright as
| herself.
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821641/
| thebradbain wrote:
| SAG-AFTRA, the actors union, is actually about to go on strike
| for partly this very reason. Turns out unless you're already
| very famous, boilerplate contract clauses claiming to own your
| image and likeness in perpetuity and forever outside of the
| specific project you are working on is a pretty bad deal!
|
| https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/act...
|
| https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/sag...
| lostlogin wrote:
| > use their image and voice for a role in a movie without ever
| actually being on camera.
|
| The upside to this is that tech might be able to fix up some
| actors.
|
| Who will get the Oscar?
| BulgarianIdiot wrote:
| It's working fine, and getting better.
|
| A movie is a story. If the story is good, we're all ready to
| accept imperfect VFX, SFX, sets, costumes, props and so on as
| long as they're in service of a good story.
|
| So the story is the problem.
|
| The problem is the story is very often the problem in modern
| movies. So my feelings about that WGA strike are very mixed. The
| industry has seen an influx of young, inexperienced, at times
| obnoxious writers, whose union insists "you'll hire them in
| greater numbers, for longer time, at higher salaries".
|
| I'd say:
|
| Attention, Hollywood: the WGA isn't working, so please stop using
| it.
| B_Rye_Bread wrote:
| [dead]
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| > The industry has seen an influx of young, inexperienced, at
| times obnoxious writers
|
| Yeah.
|
| Young and inexperienced isn't that big a problem. But obnoxious
| certainly is a problem.
|
| The biggest problem is these people know nothing and they are
| very preachy in their writing. It makes it miserable to
| experience. No one likes to be preached at by the young and
| inexperienced.
| Spivak wrote:
| Yeah, oh my god the new Top Gun could have not been more in
| your face "look how cool and good the American military is
| facing evil vague but unspecified foreigners." Or how new
| romance movies are like "wow city life is miserable, soulless
| you should move out to this idilic countryside." And the
| ridiculous amount of movies that basically exist to ego
| stroke middle aged white dudes, like yes I get it you saved
| America or whatever using the your old man wisdom. Oh, and my
| favorite "isn't the nuclear family great, so great that you
| should put up with toxic familial relationships -- they can
| change just try harder."
|
| At least in the dad movie category they've switched to the
| hot girl half his age being the protagonist's daughter
| instead of love interest.
| napolux wrote:
| This is just a way to avoid failures and not try new stuff. Let's
| revive Indiana Jones or others, young people are not going to the
| movies anyway, better invest in the old folks that like old
| movies.
| Spivak wrote:
| I think series has pretty much captured the young adult market,
| I can't remember the last time someone recommended an actual
| standalone movie that wasn't a die-hard Marvel fan.
|
| Edit: Everything Everywhere I think a was the last one.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| Not least, young adults are also probably the least able to
| actually shell out nearly PS20 to go and see a film. Younger
| kids get taken by parents, older adults might get a living
| wage to afford it. Plus, in car-centric places, it's hard to
| even get to the cinema if you don't drive a car. Meanwhile
| Netflix is probably are already subscribed to, so it's
| "free".
| unethical_ban wrote:
| They did it with Indy because the sequel is out 40 years after
| the original. It wouldn't make sense to do a Godfather Part II
| style dual-actor for the film.
|
| That's not to say the technology isn't overused.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| Rob Deniros curb stomp scene in The Irishman is hilarious because
| of this. A 75 year old actor made to look 40, supposedly beating
| up the store owner, but looks like he's trying not to break his
| hip as he shuffles around.
|
| Jump to 1:15 -
|
| https://youtu.be/XqGV0IuodWE
| CharlesW wrote:
| The hilarity of this infamous scene isn't because of the de-
| aging tech (which is quite good), but because they inexplicably
| used an elderly Rob Deniros to do a fight scene. The effect
| would've been unremarkable had they used a body double for wide
| shots like this.
| sieongioetnio wrote:
| That scene is ridiculous, but the de-aging was worse than
| ridiculous. At the beginning of the movie I thought De Niro was
| supposed to be about fifty years old. I knew he had been
| digitally de-aged but it never crossed my mind he was supposed
| to be in his twenties. For a good chunk of the movie I didn't
| understand why the gangsters were so interested in recruiting a
| middle-aged truck driver.
|
| The de-aging prevented me from understanding the story.
| pan69 wrote:
| I recently rewatched this movie as the first time I saw it I
| couldn't get into it (mainly because of the de-aging I
| think).
|
| It was the scene at the gas station where Joe Pescis
| character says to De Niros character something like "what's
| your name kid?" that made me laugh out loud. De Niro
| literally looks like a 50 year old.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Haha I didn't even notice that! That is amazing!
| millon wrote:
| They are still making money. so, working as expected.
| samtho wrote:
| This is sort of related to putting an actor's face on another,
| often in the case of the original actor being unavailable,
| including being deceased - the ultimate case of unavailability.
|
| I suppose there are two ways to include an actor if they are
| unable to perform in the role. Given that the reason why you want
| a specific performer back is because this current production is a
| sequel or takes place in the same universe, you can always use
| archival or cut footage from a prior engagement. The problem with
| this approach is that it leaves the character seemingly in their
| own world: they don't react to anything and events just happen
| around them. Audiences pick up on this quickly and the movie
| magic is lost as a result.
|
| The CG case is where we can "de-age" or bring an actor back to
| life, which I suppose is a sort of de-aging in itself. It
| involves mapping a digital prosthetic to the stand-in's face and
| remaping movements from the body double back onto the mask. In
| the case of de-aging, the body double is just the older version
| of the same actor. This is done with mo-cap typically and more
| and more special effects are being done within video game engines
| and development suites like Unreal and Unity, also contributing
| to the cutscene look of the final output.
|
| In the past, film editors have been able to "live paint" as if
| using photoshop to retouch an image. The software follows the
| image between frames an applies the transformation. This additive
| method of altering the image is used in every single medium to
| high-production value piece of video media and we are used to the
| retouched look of it to the point where we don't notice it
| whatsoever. A skilled artist can do the de-aging here.
|
| Hollywood is behind the high-tech world of AI-driven facial
| replacement by a few years even thought it all feels like old
| news to us. I suspect it will only get better and move from
| "uncanny valley" to "passable" within about five years and firmly
| into the world of "undetectable" within a decade. However, I
| believe that AAA video games will show us more realistic
| renditions a few years in advance of cinema because that
| industry's technology is driving film and TV and I believe will
| continue to do so for years to come.
| [deleted]
| emodendroket wrote:
| Seems like the effects themselves and the new film are symptoms
| of the desire to keep going back to the nostalgia well even for
| "new" works and the failure (or perhaps conscious decision not
| to) cultivate new movie stars. Not to take away from the
| achievements of any of the greats of yesteryear, but imagine if
| we were still watching Kareem or Larry Bird shuffle around in the
| NBA finals.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| It's a symptom of the wider mentality in media production
| nowadays: why innovate, when you can recreate?
|
| We see this time and time again. Live action X, sequel Y,
| reboot Z, ad nauseam because once a company reaches a certain
| point the marketing budgets and brand loyalty can convince
| anyone to see anything. So, why take on "risky" new ideas when
| the old ones still work?
|
| We also see what happens to these "new" ideas, even when
| successful. Cartoons such as "Infinity Train" and "The Owl
| House" getting canned partway through their run for literally
| no reason while other shows like "Raven's Home" and "The Legend
| of Korra", both spinoffs of mid-2000s shows, were pushed to
| extremes with the former still running to this day.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| This isn't a new phenomenon though. Think about how much of
| Shakespeare is retelling older stories.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Coming to a theater near you: Antman, The Wasp, Romeo and
| Juliet
| ilamont wrote:
| Some of the thinking appears to be "let's create something
| that both kids and their parents can relate to" ... this may
| have started with Popeye (1980 starring Robin Williams) but
| remaking cartoons or comics into live action TV had started
| earlier, since at least the 1960s with Batman.
|
| Then there are the familiar story reboots. The Jazz Singer
| has had multiple remakes since the 1920s (and we're overdue
| for another one). A Christmas Carol has been redone even
| more.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > let's create something that both kids and their parents
| can relate to
|
| There's a fair amount of sly humor in The Wizard of Oz
| (1939) clearly directed at adults.
| BulgarianIdiot wrote:
| Same reason why AI models are popular. They remix what
| exists, instead of coming back to the source. We can
| definitely make AI which puts more effort, at more cost, but
| that's not the point. The point is quick, cheap, seemingly
| high-quality result, just good enough to fool you in a hurry,
| so you make money. And the more it works, the more doomed we
| are.
| scotty79 wrote:
| It will be super funny to see nostalgia of Gen Z. And how we,
| older folks won't even get it.
| bdcravens wrote:
| Suspension of disbelief is a critical component of storytelling.
| Whether it's aliens, laser swords, or a basketball player being
| guarded by a cartoon character, previous efforts look silly by
| today's standards, yet the audience fell in love with the story.
| It need only be "good enough" for a person to make that
| conversion in their mind.
| SantalBlush wrote:
| Some special effects just look bad, regardless of the time
| period. The lightsabers from Star Wars: A New Hope (the un-
| remastered version) still look pretty decent. Gollum from the
| Lord of the Rings trilogy looks ridiculous, and he always did.
| samtho wrote:
| I will argue that Gollum looked better than the goblins in
| The Hobbit trilogy, however. It helped that Andy Serkis
| played both the mo-cap portion and provided the voice and
| subsequent acting.
| bombcar wrote:
| He certainly looked better than Legolas trying to be Mario.
| layer8 wrote:
| As far as Hollywood is concerned, the only criteria for "working"
| is whether people still go watch the movie, not how uncanny it
| looks.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-20 23:01 UTC)