US Timeline : The Mandalorian

Well, I caught up and watched the last episode of season 2 last night - all I can say is absolutely astounding finish to a top Star Wars franchise.

[Jaymoss]

I find it mad how there are Deep Fake Star Wars videos on youtube that do a better job at faces than studios. Maybe they need to employ the youtube guys

Are they in 4K?

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Are they in 4K?

Not sure if you mean the series or the deep fakes but the answer to both is yes anyway

The deep fakes - thanks for the answer.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The deep fakes - thanks for the answer.

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...wars+deep+fake

Some of these are really good

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Paul

.. or its the name of Season 3, thats unclear atm.

Nope. Different show.

https://thedirect.com/article/the-ma...=StarWarsStuff

I love the confusion around the 'clarification'.

The fact they had to clarify it at all is poor, they should get their act together.

[Pierre]

Now that most will have seen it, we have to address the CGI. It was great to see him, but the CGI was woeful and ruined what could have been a truly great reveal.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Now that most will have seen it, we have to address the CGI. It was great to see him, but the CGI was woeful and ruined what could have been a truly great reveal.

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.

[cimt]

They used a body double. I think if they actually used Mark Hammil then it would of looked better.

Hamill did the voice.

[Pierre]

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.

TBH, I didnt really notice much wrong with it, but then Im not obsessed with it.

[1701-e]

Originally Posted by Paul

TBH, I didnt really notice much wrong with it, but then Im not obsessed with it.

Agreed. Not perfect but I was too busy with tears in the eyes (onions or something nearby) to let it bug me.