Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
It's a bit odd.
The CGI Tarkin in Rogue One was pretty good; the CGI Leia in the same film was ropey - about the same as the CGI Luke in this week's Mandalorian. Meanwhile, I re-watched Captain Marvel during the week and the de-ageing they did on Samuel L Jackson and Clark Gregg was astonishingly good. In the case of the Mandalorian, Mark Hamill is credited as Luke Skywalker so you would have hoped it would have been a case of de-ageing his own face rather than mapping a CGO version of his face onto another actor, as was required in Rogue One. They *should* have been able to do it better than they did - the technology is more than able. However, I suspect the problem is the Mandalorian was conceived as a modest-budget production. For all the trumpeting the super-high technology they use to create virtual environments in The Volume at Lucasfilm, it is at the end of the day a TV studio, being used to create an almost entirely studio-bound show, and the reason for doing that is it's cheaper.
I suspect the mundane reason why Luke Skywalker didn't look very convincing is that by the time they got to the final episode they didn't have enough budget left to pay someone for the time required to do any better, which is a real shame.
|
Indeed, de-aging seems to work better. Michael Douglas (Ant man) and Kurt Russell (GoftG 2) 2 further examples.
GMTarkin I agree was very good and as it was a fairly big role in Rogue 1, they must have thrown a wedge of cash at it. Leia was a 2 second appearance, so understandable it was not as polished.
If the Luke reveal was akin to Leia, it wouldn’t have irked me. But to have Luke stood there talking and interacting.......it had to be good and it just wasn’t. They should have known that this was a massive moment.
I’m not plugged into the fanboy world, but I would be surprised if it went down well.
I accept budget limitations, but this, this was not something to fudge.
Unfortunately, Luke’s return was fantastic right up until he took his hood off.