Feel like the music is kinda off. Way too threatening for the subject matter. IMO there is a time and a place for it. AKA flash back scenes. But we are seeing more and more actors being de-aged for vanity's sake. For me personally, that's a much bigger problem because it inherently says 'yes we can have older actors, but only if we make them look young' when age is something that happens to every single human being on the planet, we should not be censoring the effects of time.
@Francis Serra i'm sorry for disagree. On Terminator Salvation was sucks but they nade a great job in Genesis, to the point that i saw many web designers lureds claming that was a Anorld ripped off from the 1984 film.
I am so impressed what CGI can do today and to see actors be De Aged in certain movies :). I loved the De Aging effects in the Ant man movies, Guardians Of the Galaxy 2 , Captain America Civil War and Captain Marvel :). I can’t wait to see The Irishman to see Robert De Niro , Al Pacino and Joe Pesci get De Aged :)
Well we're to the point where we can being back deceased actors such as James Dean in a Vietnam War film. If there are no ethics, we gotta make some. To be fair, it's not digital de aging its recreating someone but the technology is quite similar to each other.
@@Big-guy1981 that's true. Most people honestly dont care. However, most of the people vocal about it are in the industry or follow up on the industry. There are many questions about this and why we are even trying to do it.
2:28 Was the best ever, before the old and the young actors were real and incredibly resembling... I remembered be obsessed for years about how it was made, because when it's real, you know it but I could not imagine they have found such a resembling actor and thought they used makeup on Damon.
"We want to relive and recreate their youth, now, today again and again" Sorry, bullshit. Filmmakers finally have the technology to include subplots and scenes they just never had access to before. It has nothing to do with famous actors reliving and recreating their youth. You see some movies capitalize right now on doing that because it's a new technology and still has that awe factor but soon that will die out and you'll be left with writers and directors being able to expand on a story because they can now show events, stories and interactions from the past (and the future actually) because the technology is finally at that point where it can work.
Sorry, disagree. the extent of stars using covert "digital plastic surgery" - the stuff that doesn't get flagged up - makes it's hard to argue that it's about much else than reliving and recreating youth onscreen. the examples shown here are the high-profile tip of the iceberg. and writers and directors were never restricted to showing alternative aspects of a story, they just did it in a different way. if you're OK with the new vfx methods, that's fine, many are. The digital resurrection idea in Part 2 is where, for me, things get really ethically compromised. though again, others have no issue with it.
Are you aware of the fact that these are different effects though? There's de-aging like with RDJ and the X-Men clips where they alter footage they've shot, and then there's the stuff from Tron and Tarkin and Leia in Rogue on where it's a 3D CGI animated head and face.
hi, yes, there are many different techniques involved and some definitely more convincing than others. overall the video is more about looking at the results and implications of the various end results of those vfx, rather than examining those effects in detail, which would be a fascinating study in itself.
When it serves the plot there is nothing wrong with it, and when it's well done it's even better. When I watched Ant Man at the theater and saw young Michael Douglas come in I was fascinated that I was actually wanting to see more of Hank Pym.
With computers because the more powerful, rendering youthful-looking actors will become cheaper especially inevitable studios move these jobs to India...
This is a technology that is still on diapers, let's be just helpful and happy for this new technology that the movie creators are trying to improve, I mean, is just like the special effects back on the 90's or the 60's, is normal for the effects to look artificial or obvious because we are just starting on it
Patrick Stewart did not look like that when he started working on Star Trek - TNG ,as Jean Luc Picard ! put 2 photos together & you would see ! something is off with Professor Xavier's facial Shape & Complection , looks like a big Face scrub .
Have you seen Blade runner 2049 ? *Small spoiler incomming* when rachel is brought back, at her age from the original movie, she is simply perfect. You can not honestly say that if you didn't see the original Blade Runner, you would have ever guessed that she is CGI. So outside the question of ethics, I would rather see a huge blockbuster like Rogue One trying out new techniques, maybe not fully mastered and maybe risk the uncanny valley, but if we have to go through this transition phase to get to be amazed by movies like BR2049, I would say go for it. If I get your point, you are saying that it kills creativity, but creativity comes from people, and CGI and digital De-Aging are just tools. I can bet you anything that in the future, we are likely to have a cinema masterpiece that uses these tools perfectly and creatively, and I hope you will see the point then.
Honestly? Rachael in BR 2k49 looks far from perfect, especially when she's talking. There's no way I'd mistake the BR 2k49 Rachael for the original character. Even with the lighting, the dispassionate facial expressions and the excessive makeup that Sean Young wore in the original BR, the character in in BR 2k49 looks like a digital recreation.
Right? No hate on the VFX artists involved, I'm sure it must have taken a lot of effort, but would it have been that hard to at least re-add some of the texture back onto their skins? They look like wax figures. Although in fairness, back then there was little to compare it to so maybe we're just looking through a more informed lens 15 years later of how much better it can look.
Kurt Russell's de-aging in Guardians 2 was really good. Practically perfect.
SlavjanA he looked like his character from escape from L.A., Tango and cash, i.e. perfect mullet
They were so confident in it that I believe Kurt Russel tried to claim that it was a makeup effect that his makeup artist did even tho it was CGI
Linda Hamilton in Terminator Dark fate is the best work ever done
Feel like the music is kinda off. Way too threatening for the subject matter.
IMO there is a time and a place for it. AKA flash back scenes. But we are seeing more and more actors being de-aged for vanity's sake.
For me personally, that's a much bigger problem because it inherently says 'yes we can have older actors, but only if we make them look young' when age is something that happens to every single human being on the planet, we should not be censoring the effects of time.
De-aged Schwarzenegger in Terminator looked perfect.
@Francis Serra i'm sorry for disagree. On Terminator Salvation was sucks but they nade a great job in Genesis, to the point that i saw many web designers lureds claming that was a Anorld ripped off from the 1984 film.
I am so impressed what CGI can do today and to see actors be De Aged in certain movies :). I loved the De Aging effects in the Ant man movies, Guardians Of the Galaxy 2 , Captain America Civil War and Captain Marvel :).
I can’t wait to see The Irishman to see Robert De Niro , Al Pacino and Joe Pesci get De Aged :)
What ethics? Movies will always have special effects and de-aging is just one of them.
Well we're to the point where we can being back deceased actors such as James Dean in a Vietnam War film. If there are no ethics, we gotta make some. To be fair, it's not digital de aging its recreating someone but the technology is quite similar to each other.
BS! 99.99% of people don't mind seeing James Dean in a Vietnam War film.
@@Big-guy1981 that's true. Most people honestly dont care. However, most of the people vocal about it are in the industry or follow up on the industry. There are many questions about this and why we are even trying to do it.
2:28 Was the best ever, before the old and the young actors were real and incredibly resembling... I remembered be obsessed for years about how it was made, because when it's real, you know it but I could not imagine they have found such a resembling actor and thought they used makeup on Damon.
this is extremely interesting! can't wait for part 2
"We want to relive and recreate their youth, now, today again and again"
Sorry, bullshit. Filmmakers finally have the technology to include subplots and scenes they just never had access to before. It has nothing to do with famous actors reliving and recreating their youth. You see some movies capitalize right now on doing that because it's a new technology and still has that awe factor but soon that will die out and you'll be left with writers and directors being able to expand on a story because they can now show events, stories and interactions from the past (and the future actually) because the technology is finally at that point where it can work.
Sorry, disagree. the extent of stars using covert "digital plastic surgery" - the stuff that doesn't get flagged up - makes it's hard to argue that it's about much else than reliving and recreating youth onscreen. the examples shown here are the high-profile tip of the iceberg. and writers and directors were never restricted to showing alternative aspects of a story, they just did it in a different way. if you're OK with the new vfx methods, that's fine, many are. The digital resurrection idea in Part 2 is where, for me, things get really ethically compromised. though again, others have no issue with it.
99% of people have no issue with it. I can't wait to see Sean Connery in a new James Bond
Man you talk like you are in lot of pain :D
i'm just about bearing up, but appreciate your concern.
Are you aware of the fact that these are different effects though? There's de-aging like with RDJ and the X-Men clips where they alter footage they've shot, and then there's the stuff from Tron and Tarkin and Leia in Rogue on where it's a 3D CGI animated head and face.
hi, yes, there are many different techniques involved and some definitely more convincing than others. overall the video is more about looking at the results and implications of the various end results of those vfx, rather than examining those effects in detail, which would be a fascinating study in itself.
When it serves the plot there is nothing wrong with it, and when it's well done it's even better. When I watched Ant Man at the theater and saw young Michael Douglas come in I was fascinated that I was actually wanting to see more of Hank Pym.
Yeah its becoming an obsession seeing older actors become young again in new films.... even trying to bring them back from the dead like Peter cushing
With computers because the more powerful, rendering youthful-looking actors will become cheaper especially inevitable studios move these jobs to India...
This is a technology that is still on diapers, let's be just helpful and happy for this new technology that the movie creators are trying to improve, I mean, is just like the special effects back on the 90's or the 60's, is normal for the effects to look artificial or obvious because we are just starting on it
Patrick Stewart did not look like that when he started working on Star Trek - TNG ,as Jean Luc Picard ! put 2 photos together & you would see ! something is off with Professor Xavier's facial Shape & Complection , looks like a big Face scrub .
You neither discuss the art nor the ethics. It's like reading the definition to music.
Have you seen Blade runner 2049 ? *Small spoiler incomming* when rachel is brought back, at her age from the original movie, she is simply perfect. You can not honestly say that if you didn't see the original Blade Runner, you would have ever guessed that she is CGI. So outside the question of ethics, I would rather see a huge blockbuster like Rogue One trying out new techniques, maybe not fully mastered and maybe risk the uncanny valley, but if we have to go through this transition phase to get to be amazed by movies like BR2049, I would say go for it. If I get your point, you are saying that it kills creativity, but creativity comes from people, and CGI and digital De-Aging are just tools. I can bet you anything that in the future, we are likely to have a cinema masterpiece that uses these tools perfectly and creatively, and I hope you will see the point then.
Honestly? Rachael in BR 2k49 looks far from perfect, especially when she's talking. There's no way I'd mistake the BR 2k49 Rachael for the original character. Even with the lighting, the dispassionate facial expressions and the excessive makeup that Sean Young wore in the original BR, the character in in BR 2k49 looks like a digital recreation.
that last stand stuff, even for the time... looks terrible. just saying!
Right? No hate on the VFX artists involved, I'm sure it must have taken a lot of effort, but would it have been that hard to at least re-add some of the texture back onto their skins? They look like wax figures.
Although in fairness, back then there was little to compare it to so maybe we're just looking through a more informed lens 15 years later of how much better it can look.
Digital botox. It looks so off and is too obvious and distracting. I hate it.
no worries, that moment when they won't need an actors is very close
Oh my god, that ant man one was fucking awful