The Syndicate

Hey, I know there's a debate going on out there about doing a little CGI magic for Leia in the Star Wars Saga part IX. I actually haven't tuned into any of it, but I absolutely think they should CGI some Leia in to finish the story properly.

Is long con silenced somewhere? Is he just hanging out for another game? What's going on?

So is this the official "I've been Silenced and I can't get up" thread?

And so long as it is respectfully done, I agree re Leia. I would think she would have been pleased.

In this case I would say.. provided it's a death scene, it's fine. I don't think they should try and do it for a whole movie.

Rogue One sadly offered no hope (pun not intended) as to this being avoided, to be honest. The franchise is obviously putting its iconography on a high pedestal. So, unless they were "lucky" and have written off Leia come Episode VIII or had Episode IX material shot at least, before Fisher passed away, you will see her hologram, I've no doubt about it -- they CGI'd Tarkin, ffs, you can be sure they'll CGI the heck out of her.

Why couldn't they just cast someone else? We had two Dumbledores and nobody cared.

Epignosis wrote:Why couldn't they just cast someone else? We had two Dumbledores and nobody cared.

The second dumbledore was nowhere near as good.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Why couldn't they just cast someone else? We had two Dumbledores and nobody cared.

The second dumbledore was nowhere near as good.

I disagree, but that's not the point.

Honestly, a CGI Leia would allow for a better performance than what we got in The Force Awakens.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Why couldn't they just cast someone else? We had two Dumbledores and nobody cared.

The second dumbledore was nowhere near as good.

I disagree, but that's not the point.

I disagree as well. I prefer the less feeble Dumbledore.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Why couldn't they just cast someone else? We had two Dumbledores and nobody cared.

The second dumbledore was nowhere near as good.

I disagree, but that's not the point.

I know. But here we are with three different opinions on which one was better, so I think your point is wrong

Epignosis wrote:Why couldn't they just cast someone else? We had two Dumbledores and nobody cared.

And they did it for the Oracle in the third Matrix, and it was awful awful awful. They should absolutely CGI Leia. Carrie would want them to finish Leia's story the way it was intended.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Why couldn't they just cast someone else? We had two Dumbledores and nobody cared.

And they did it for the Oracle in the third Matrix, and it was awful awful awful. They should absolutely CGI Leia. Carrie would want them to finish Leia's story the way it was intended.

Re-casting the Oracle doesn't even crack my top 10 list of reasons why Reloaded and Revolutions are inferior and shouldn't have been made.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Why couldn't they just cast someone else? We had two Dumbledores and nobody cared.

And they did it for the Oracle in the third Matrix, and it was awful awful awful. They should absolutely CGI Leia. Carrie would want them to finish Leia's story the way it was intended.

See, I never understand what that last part means. A) With the risk of sounding cynical, we shouldn't project what dead people would have liked. There are wills for that. B) You need an actor to finish a character's story. You cannot finish a story with a dead actor.

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Why couldn't they just cast someone else? We had two Dumbledores and nobody cared.

And they did it for the Oracle in the third Matrix, and it was awful awful awful. They should absolutely CGI Leia. Carrie would want them to finish Leia's story the way it was intended.

This^^

Knowing what we know about her, I absolutely think she would have wanted to see the story play out as intended, and she would want to be a part of it. So long as it is done respectfully, and isn't overdone, I think it is the way to go.

I don't know on what basis anybody would think they know what a dead person would want.

If I were an actor on his deathbed, I would MUCH rather them find a damn fine talented actor to carry on my legacy than fill me in with fake ass CGI bullshit. Do you think Carrie would say, "Yes, they need to use CGI to finish out my parts." ???

That's arrogant and silly. If there must be a Leia, get a live actress to do it. The actress doesn't affect the story. Just how it's told.

Well, that's you.

And of course the actress influences the role. She was dedicated to the story and I think, based on interviews I have read, that she would have liked to have finished it out.

S~V~S wrote:Well, that's you.

And of course the actress influences the role. She was dedicated to the story and I think, based on interviews I have read, that she would have liked to have finished it out.

Well she can't. CGI isn't her either.

You are, of course, correct.

Pardon me.

Ricochet wrote:

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Why couldn't they just cast someone else? We had two Dumbledores and nobody cared.

And they did it for the Oracle in the third Matrix, and it was awful awful awful. They should absolutely CGI Leia. Carrie would want them to finish Leia's story the way it was intended.

See, I never understand what that last part means. A) With the risk of sounding cynical, we shouldn't project what dead people would have liked. There are wills for that. B) You need an actor to finish a character's story. You cannot finish a story with a dead actor.

Princess Leia is Carrie Fisher's claim to immortality, Star Wars is the greatest thing she was a part of. She knew that, and I don't think it's arrogant to assume that she would want Leia's story arc to reach its intended end.

It makes a lot more sense than assuming she would prefer for Leia to be killed off-screen with minimal fuss. Why does it have to be "fake-ass CGI bullshit"? Sure, if it looks fake, then the technology's not there yet, and it's not a good idea. If it looks like it's actually her, then I don't see how it's any different, really, than another actress. I haven't seen Rogue One, how did Tarkin look?

Long Con wrote:Princess Leia is Carrie Fisher's claim to immortality, Star Wars is the greatest thing she was a part of.

Nobody is questioning that - although it is also a syndrome of today's modern mainstream perception that a face is matched with a character, not the other way around. Harry Potter will probably always be Daniel Radcliffe. Neo will probably always be Keanu Reeves. Bella will assumingly always be Kristen Stewart. Adult Luke Skywalker anyone but Mark Hammill? Sacrilege! On the other hand, I don't see anyone complaining that "Spider-Man can only be one".

Then again, maybe I'll be proven wrong, and in 30 years time the reboot cycle will start all over again with these movies, just like it currently tramples 70s, 80s and 90s (or even earlier) cinema. Who the bloody frak said to himself "hmm, I could use a new Mary Poppins in my life"? On second though, did anyone complain that "Mary Poppins can only be Julie Andrews", to the same extent that "Leia Organa Solo can only be Carrie Fisher"?

Long Con wrote: She knew that, and I don't think it's arrogant to assume that she would want Leia's story arc to reach its intended end.

See, "reach its intended end" needs an accurate definition here. If it's to "faithfully and with reverence wrap up the story of this character", I would have no qualms with this. The only impediment is that the actress for that is now dead. Do they have enough material for that wrap up? Great. Do they have enough material, but would still require some CGI insertions to fill in the small gaps (see further below Hunger Games case)? I can be fine with that. Do they not have the material? Well, shucks. Do they not have the material and want to CGI all to make up for it? Uh... Do they also want to do it because "only Carrie Fisher can be Leia" and fan service and franchise trademarking? See where I'm getting?

I still don't see how you can, for semantics' sake, translate "she would want it ... to reach its intended end" into "sure, she would have wanted to get CGId the hell out of her".

I may sound idealistic for sure, but CGI is a non-human artifice currently applied to enhancing the effects and visual as well as applying features to a (living) actor / performer, whatever the context or purpose of that might be. Last time I checked, acting itself was still supposed to be a human art. If Leia will be CGI'd, it won't be done for the acting, it will be done for the goal of keeping the iconography of "Leia" intact.

Long Con wrote:Why does it have to be "fake-ass CGI bullshit"? Sure, if it looks fake, then the technology's not there yet, and it's not a good idea. If it looks like it's actually her, then I don't see how it's any different, really, than another actress. I haven't seen Rogue One, how did Tarkin look?

The technology is there now, that's why they're doing it. That's why it wasn't there for Dumbledore to stay the same. That's why it wasn't there for the Oracle to stay the same. It is now and, especially coming from a big ass franchise such as Lucas/Disney, it might easily become the new trend.

The only precedent I can think of was editing Philip Seymour Hoffmann into the last bits of the last Hunger Games, but that required minor intervention and purely cosmetical last touches (compared to which I'd assume SW are in big crisis with Episode IX, since so much talk is being generated around this without them coming forth and saying "yes we have enough with Fisher for episode IX, chillax", but I digress).

Tarkin looked like Tarkin, but was overused. Literally no finesse in keeping old Tarkin "alive".