Too often people will say “They’re not there yet” with a particular special effect. I don’t know how these people expect them to get “there” if they aren’t putting their efforts on screen.
Agreed, I was surprised that they didn’t go back to him for this movie. He looked decent enough at the end of the prequels in that small bit.
I was not put off by CGI Tarkin. I knew it was going to be there and was prepared to see him like that. I didn’t think it looked 100% right, but I thought it looked good enough. CGI Leia didn’t look as good to me. I also knew she was going to be there but the scene seemed less realistic than Tarkin’s.
When I was watching the movie, to the extent that I thought about it at all (which wasn’t much), I just assumed that they found a lookalike actor.
And really, the fact that I didn’t think about it much is itself a tribute to their work. The audience shouldn’t be thinking about things like that.
Eye of the beholder, and all that…my data points:
Mrs G thought Tarkin looked amazing, being fooled enough that Cushing may be still alive to the point of looking him up on imdb.
I thought it was clunky obvious CGI, very distracting uncanny valley, though I admired the attempt.
Tally up another vote for “Tarkin looked fine, Leia didn’t” - I’m really not sure what the fuss is for Tarkin beyond general internet anger.
I haven’t seen all of it yet, but Tarkin looks bad. His face is plastic. Either the whites of his eyes are too bright or he’s lacking pores, but something is wrong.
OK, seeing that side-by-side comparison, I’m forced to two conclusions: First, the real Peter Cushing isn’t very realistic. He’s deeper in the Uncanny Valley than the CGI one. And second, the director of Rogue One really loves shadows.
I think that the main issue with the CGI Tarkin is his facial movements. It’s very, very good, but not perfect - they are just a bit too “mechanical.”
Funny how our perceptions can change with time and with knowledge. One of my sons had to be told that Tarkin was CGI before he recognized it, but once he knew, all he could see was the “CGI-ness” of the performance.
I remember when I was a kid, seeing special effects in films only rarely took me out of the story, but as I grew and learned more about the world, I found them less and less impressive. When Star Wars first came out in '77, I was prepared for a new level of things, because that’s what all the talk was about before the film was released. Nothing about the story itself. Even as relatively good as that film was, I had already reached the point where I was seeing most of the FX defects in real time, as I watched the film. But I long ago trained myself to sort of shut down the part of me that’s judgmental about such things, once I pay the exorbitant ticket price, in order to maximize returns on my spending.
You know what I find downright funny these days? Is that so many film makers purposely ADD traditional DEFECTS into films. Lens flares in particular, get added in to both realistic, and animated features, and strangely enough, they can make the film seem more “real,” because we EXPECT to see lens flares.
When the movie came out, consensus seemed to be “Tarkin looked fine, Leia didn’t” but I had the exact opposite reaction. Maybe because I knew going into the movie that Tarkin was going to show up, but didn’t know about Leia, so it caught me by surprise. I think it also might be that Tarkin is in it more, and the movements are what give it away (in the video Miller linked, for example, from :20 t0 :30 his body movements look very robotic to me) whereas Leia doesn’t really wiggle or anything.
Looking at CGI Leia again, yeah… the top half of her face doesn’t move at all when she speaks her line.
Dirt on the lens is a weird one too. Not just dust causing the lens flare to look more real, but actual water splashes or mud on the lens is added digitally to make it seem like the camera is real. I am a huge proponent of digital filmmaking and post-production but that, to me, is going too far.
But, again, isn’t it just a CGI Tarkin face superimposed on an actor’s body?
If so, then it’s an actual guy’s real-life movements that struck you as robotic!
To tell the truth, I’m not sure. Some stuff makes me think that all of Tarkin is CGI, even though they used Guy Henry as an actor. Look at some of the stuff in this video for example. At 3:35 there’s a rough (non-textured) CGI Tarkin, including the uniform. At 4:10 there’s a four-way shot, and the one in the upper right appears to be Guy Henry’s (CGI?) face on top of the uniform (which looks different from the real footage in the upper left). And at 4:29 there’s a three-way shot where the part labelled “photography” has no uniform, only the two labelled “computer graphics.” So, my guess would be that they redid his uniform with CGI as well, but I’m far from certain.
Well, while we are picking on ersatz Tarkin, I’d like to criticize Vader Mark II.
He didn’t walk right. David Prowse had a stiff, bodybuilder walk.
Whoever played Vader in the scene where he chokes Krennic (either Spencer Wilding or Daniel Naprous), moved his hips too much.
In many shots that is all they’re doing, especially the wider shots where you can see down to his waist. But for the close ups they aren’t always doing that, instead replacing everything. You can see in one clip (can’t track it down, darn it) that the angle of Guy Henry’s head doesn’t match the angle that Tarkin ends up having, so they’re using his vocal performance only. I assume they decided he wasn’t imitating Cushing enough for their liking so they tried to correct for it, or something like that. Situations like that make me think that sometimes VFX wields too much control.
I’d say what we saw in Rogue One was the Vader from Rebels, not the Vader from the OT. He’s a bit more nimble.
ETA: I mean, this supposedly took place three years before Vader lumbered around in ANH.
For me it was around the mouth. Little twitches and muscle movements around the mouth that also made little twitches and muscle movements happen in the cheeks that the real one had that the CGI one did not.
I’ve contemplated why Tarkin looked wrong to me and I can’t put my finger on it, but I have a theory. I know they did motion capture on the actor’s face and translated his muscle movements as he spoke/emoted to the CGI model’s movements. Perhaps the actor doesn’t move his face when he talks the same way that Peter Cushing did, which threw it off. The motion capture was based on key points on his face, say 50-100 of them. A real person’s facial movements are much more analogue and so even if the digital resolution of the image was good, the digital resolution of the movement was not. In any case, it didn’t look good to me.
When a special effect is obvious because the item or event depicted does not/cannot exist, but is nonetheless perfectly executed, it’s easy to forget it’s fake and accept it. For example, I found Benjamin Button to be flawless. Tarkin I did not.
Later in the film, when Red Leader and Gold Leader showed up, I concluded that it must have been some unused outtakes from '77. (Turns out I was correct). When Leia showed up to utter her one line, “Hope”, I knew immediately it was CGI, even though it was not inconceivable that an outtake of her saying that word could have existed since '77 and been repurposed here.
Heh. Just picture it: Vader learns one, and only one, lesson after his limbs lose out to Obi-Wan – which is to say, don’t leap around in front of Obi-Wan.
Vader in Rebels, Vader in Rogue One – twirl, dance, work some acrobatic magic, strut around like you’re the greatest swordsman who ever lived; move like a maestro is conducting a symphony and you’re the baton, if you want. Hey, is that Obi-Wan? Don’t showboat; Point The Laser Sword At Him And Lumber Forward.