Rogue One and TOS actors

[uniderth]

But JJ Abrams is the one guy who just, all of sudden, definitively 'proved' that recasting is 'crap'?
.

Yep.

But to be fair we have to narrow the field a bit. Superheros get recast all the time. Characters there are also one off recasts (generally in pilots) like Father Mulcahy and Saviik, or occasionally seen characters. Plus you also have to consider the limitations of the time. We are just now entering into an age where we can recreate the look of original actors. Before you really only had two options, recast, or remove the character. So recasting was really more of a necessary evil. Dr. Who is interesting in that it incorporated recasting into the character.

This also ties in with remakes. As a general rule I dislike remakes in visual media(except for the previously mentioned superheros as that appears to be an essential part of the genre.). That's mainly becasue I feel it dishonors the original work. Who has gone and started watching the original Hawaii Five-O because they watched the remake series? A handful? But if they had made the new series a continuation/sequel to the original then I bet far more people would watch the original, becasue the new series would not be a replacement for the original.

The reason why I singled out JJTrek is becasue is both recast classic characters whose appearance has been established for generations; and becasue as a reboot it is also a replacement for the original show. The Hawaii Five-O reboot is crap. The MacGyver reboot is crap. Even if the writing on the show is amazing, it's still crap just becasue it is a reboot.

 

[Kor]

Even if the writing on the show is amazing, it's still crap just becasue it is a reboot.

I disagree.

Kor

 

[uniderth]

I disagree.

Kor

Your disagreement is noted.

 

[Hippocrates Noah]

I didn't really mind the CGI Tarkin, maybe because the creepiness of the CGI lent itself well to an evil character such as that. But the CGI Leia was terrible, they would have been better off shooting the back of somebody's head looking out into space. It seems to me the technology just isn't there yet. I saw it with a group and there was one girl who wasn't that familiar with Star Wars, and somehow she didn't even notice that Tarkin was CGI (or know who Peter Cushing was), but she knew Carrie Fisher and was vocal about how bad Leia looked. I admit I thought it was kind of neat to see Cushing's likeness on the big screen again. I had known about it pretty far ahead of time, though Leia was a surprise, and had time to get used to the idea. And I was fairly sure Cushing would have been on board since he enjoyed being a part of Star Wars and seems to have been a nice guy. He probably would have gotten into costume and done a song/dance number in the Holiday Special if they'd asked. Maybe they should have recast, and I wouldn't like to see it become a constant thing in films, but this one time I found it interesting and enjoyable. Until creepy Leia showed up.

 

[Poltargyst]

Your disagreement is noted.

It's a GOOD thing that the JJ Abrams Trek is a reboot. For one thing, they didn't just replace the original and pretend it didn't exist. Prime Spock shows up in the new timeline! They give a reason: the Romulans came and created a new timeline. I like that because it means that MY Trek, the ORIGINAL Trek still exists in its own timeline safe from any meddling that Abrams or any other directors might do I'm a big continuity and consistency guy, and I'm pretty anal about it. If it was supposed to be the same timeline as Prime Trek, it would have pissed me off any time they would have contradicted established continuity. But in its own timeline, they are free to do whatever they want, change whatever continuity they want, and I'm okay with it because I know they are not messing with Prime Trek continuity.

Now that I've said all that, I'm realizing that AbramsTrek isn't really a reboot at all. The original timeline still exists as evidenced by the appearance of Prime Spock. These are simply the adventures of characters in another timeline.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It's a GOOD thing that the JJ Abrams Trek is a reboot. For one thing, they didn't just replace the original and pretend it didn't exist. Prime Spock shows up in the new timeline! They give a reason: the Romulans came and created a new timeline. I like that because it means that MY Trek, the ORIGINAL Trek still exists in its own timeline safe from any meddling that Abrams or any other directors might do

If the Kelvin timeline had been an absolute hard reboot - meaning, if it had started from scratch, without any connection to previous Trek at all - that would still leave the original timeline safe. So you would not have anything to worry about.

Spock Prime's appearance was nice, of course, but we don't NEED that appearance to be reassured that the prime timeline continues unaltered. It's just common sense.

 

[CrazyMatt]

I'll go with yes.

Going outside established actors, there's a big meeting of Starfleet officials, the Commander of Starfleets is introduced, and a CGI Gene Roddenberry walks out in uniform and gives a exposition speech.

More likely a sales pitch.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Did anyone spot the CGI Logan in th
e chase sequences of that movie? I had no idea.
http://geektyrant.com/news/hugh-jackman-had-a-cgi-double-in-logan-and-you-wouldve-never-noticed

 

[Lance]

Sometimes, I think even with something like Rogue One it's something of an over-reach.

@UnknownSample nailed it. You can't recreate a deceased actor's acting with CGI and a voice artiste, any more than you might be able to build a working space shuttle out of egg cartons and sticky tape. You can recreate the character, you can create a facsimile of that person and their nuances. But at the end of the day, it's still not Peter Cushing. It isn't what he brought to the role, his presence on the screen, his training as an actor. And it never can be. At least when a role is recast completely you can get a sense of a new actor paying homage to the past while bringing their own interpretation to it; CGI and an impersonator can only ever be a walking meat-puppet version of the man.

 

[Kor]

Technically Tarkin was recast. The actor who did the voice had motion control sensors all over his face, and that's what the CGI character's movements were based on. The CGI was kind of like a mask on a real actor.

Kor

 

[UnknownSample]

Sometimes, I think even with something like Rogue One it's something of an over-reach.

@UnknownSample nailed it. You can't recreate a deceased actor's acting with CGI and a voice artiste, any more than you might be able to build a working space shuttle out of egg cartons and sticky tape. You can recreate the character, you can create a facsimile of that person and their nuances. But at the end of the day, it's still not Peter Cushing. It isn't what he brought to the role, his presence on the screen, his training as an actor. And it never can be. At least when a role is recast completely you can get a sense of a new actor paying homage to the past while bringing their own interpretation to it; CGI and an impersonator can only ever be a walking meat-puppet version of the man.

Thanks for the elaboration. That's what I was reaching for. Another aspect we can't reproduce is the depth and imagination and language of the scripts. We all have some complaints about more recent versions of Trek. Why would great TOS-era type scripts materialize just because you can create Kirk and Spock images in CGI?
-----------------
Then again, masses of fans might be happy with the result. The original cast films, to me, seem filled with lightweight acting and writing, which "succeed" only because we were happy to see them all back again. Whatever you think of the films, if you love them, that level might be possible to recreate. Or not. Good impressionists might get by, but there might not be any out there. I'd rather that no one tries.

 

[UnknownSample]

It's a GOOD thing that the JJ Abrams Trek is a reboot. For one thing, they didn't just replace the original and pretend it didn't exist. Prime Spock shows up in the new timeline! They give a reason: the Romulans came and created a new timeline. I like that because it means that MY Trek, the ORIGINAL Trek still exists in its own timeline safe from any meddling that Abrams or any other directors might do I'm a big continuity and consistency guy, and I'm pretty anal about it. If it was supposed to be the same timeline as Prime Trek, it would have pissed me off any time they would have contradicted established continuity. But in its own timeline, they are free to do whatever they want, change whatever continuity they want, and I'm okay with it because I know they are not messing with Prime Trek continuity.

Now that I've said all that, I'm realizing that AbramsTrek isn't really a reboot at all. The original timeline still exists as evidenced by the appearance of Prime Spock. These are simply the adventures of characters in another timeline.

In real world show business terms, a reboot is exactly and specifically what it is. Its point is to be the only new ST, and the only way new ST can be. It wipes away continuity with established Trek in future ST films. Is it really of so much value to "know" there's a "prime" timeline somewhere out there, unseen?
----------------
They did a standard show biz reboot, to rid themselves of what they didn't want to deal with from ST, then threw in this justification that makes it a splinter timeline, to mollify long term fans. They threw us a bone. What now is called the "prime universe" is now offscreen, along with the characters' original personalities and history and context. The fact that their original universe is supposedly "still there" is a totally unsatisfying technicality.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Well, the new series supposedly takes place in the old universe, so I guess it means something?

 

[Poltargyst]

In real world show business terms, a reboot is exactly and specifically what it is. Its point is to be the only new ST, and the only way new ST can be. It wipes away continuity with established Trek in future ST films. Is it really of so much value to "know" there's a "prime" timeline somewhere out there, unseen?
----------------
They did a standard show biz reboot, to rid themselves of what they didn't want to deal with from ST, then threw in this justification that makes it a splinter timeline, to mollify long term fans. They threw us a bone. What now is called the "prime universe" is now offscreen, along with the characters' original personalities and history and context. The fact that their original universe is supposedly "still there" is a totally unsatisfying technicality.

For me it totally beats them screwing up Prime continuity.

 

[KirkPicard]

Along these lines, a recent interview with Shatner wherin he speaks of tech to potentially restore him to his youthful Kirk appearance in the next Trek movie.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5337195/Star-Treks-William-Shatner-return-Captain-Kirk.html

 

[Maurice]

Technically Tarkin was recast. The actor who did the voice had motion control sensors all over his face, and that's what the CGI character's movements were based on. The CGI was kind of like a mask on a real actor.

Kor

The makeup version of this is why Crispin Glover sued over Back To the Future Part II: having one actor made up to play another actor playing a charactrer. Personally, I suspect Leonard Nimoy would have been horrified at the idea of them doing to Spock what was done to Tarkin: having another actor "wear your skin". Ick.

 

[F. King Daniel]

That the forthcoming Han Solo: A Star Wars Story is recasting everyone instead of taking the Rogue One approach shows how unworkable this idea is.

 

[johnnybear]

Didn't anyone notice how agile Darth Vader was in Rogue One compared to his Star Wars appearance (The title A New Hope has never sat right with me) especially his light sabre duel with Obi Kenobi in the Death Star!
JB

 

[F. King Daniel]

Didn't anyone notice how agile Darth Vader was in Rogue One compared to his Star Wars appearance (The title A New Hope has never sat right with me) especially his light sabre duel with Obi Kenobi in the Death Star!
JB

He put his back out doing all that stuff in Rogue One, hence being a lot less nimble in A New Hope

 

[wayne66]

Along these lines, a recent interview with Shatner wherin he speaks of tech to potentially restore him to his youthful Kirk appearance in the next Trek movie.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5337195/Star-Treks-William-Shatner-return-Captain-Kirk.html

The article says that a virtual reality company did the work on Shatner. This is what I was wondering about. Shatner said at one of the conventions last summer that he was going to play Captain Kirk in a virtual reality game. Shatner said that this would be his Captain Kirk "movie". I have been wondering about that since I heard it. Sounds like they are attempting to do a virtual reality game.