..consider the fact that this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-maLa1nApb2w/UYKheL4XXFI/AAAAAAAAC9Y/NmccJ582jCs/s1600/tarkin.jpg
...was acceptable 12 years ago. :)
Looks a lot more real to me, and looks like a 20 years younger Tarkin than in ANH. The CGI was so much better 12 years ago, alas.
If you shoot that not as a close up, it may works really fine.
de gustibus non est disputandum
..consider the fact that this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-maLa1nApb2w/UYKheL4XXFI/AAAAAAAAC9Y/NmccJ582jCs/s1600/tarkin.jpgThe wrong actor was cast. That's all. share
...was acceptable 12 years ago. :)
I disagree. Wayne Pygram would've made a passable Peter Cushing without the makeup.
I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?
You thought that was acceptable?
CG Tarkin was much better.
This new Tarkin is still, in many senses, a makeup, by the way. It's a reinterpretation of the term "makeup" for this current age; but you are looking at an acting performance in motion capture, rendered as CG. I think it's far superior and more versatile and more expressive than what could have been done with a rubber face. You can do close-ups and dialogue with it. The thing in "ROTS" was good, and a good traditional approach (I thought it was CG when I saw it), but they couldn't get the camera right in there and show it to us. The new Tarkin they could get nice and close to.
The technique will improve. That's what effects do; their techniques continually improve over time, and with experimentation, and with risk-taking. There is no imaginary stopping point where everyone will say, "Ah! Special effects have finally been perfected! We can stop experimenting now."
I keep saying, consider the word "effect". It literally states up front that the thing is not real; it's a simulation. It's a depiction. It's a falsehood that represents something in the story. Because we don't really have those space-ships or those Jabba du Hutts or those womp rats. It's gotta be faked. It creates the impression of the thing, to serve the story. It's an "effect".
CG Tarkin was much better.
This new Tarkin is still, in many senses, a makeup, by the way. It's a reinterpretation of the term "makeup" for this current age; but you are looking at an acting performance in motion capture, rendered as CG. I think it's far superior and more versatile and more expressive than what could have been done with a rubber face. You can do close-ups and dialogue with it. The thing in "ROTS" was good, and a good traditional approach (I thought it was CG when I saw it), but they couldn't get the camera right in there and show it to us. The new Tarkin they could get nice and close to.
The technique will improve. That's what effects do; their techniques continually improve over time, and with experimentation, and with risk-taking. There is no imaginary stopping point where everyone will say, "Ah! Special effects have finally been perfected! We can stop experimenting now."
I keep saying, consider the word "effect". It literally states up front that the thing is not real; it's a simulation. It's a depiction. It's a falsehood that represents something in the story. Because we don't really have those space-ships or those Jabba du Hutts or those womp rats. It's gotta be faked. It creates the impression of the thing, to serve the story. It's an "effect".
... it's because they're a moron.
shareThe 1997 special edition of Jabba the Hutt was acceptable even the 2004 DVD edition of him was acceptable even though both of those versions was absolutely deplorable and now everyone hates CGI because of Rogue One it just doesn't make any sense. God I hope that Rogue One wins the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects not to mention Best Sound Editing. Boy oh boy would that just piss some people off around here. :D
share