A Hypotetical Muppet Question

[Dick Whitman]

He is one of my biggest heroes too. I still have my Kermit doll I got when I was 3 years old!

Here is a clip that is worth a look. I saw it for the first time today before I even read this thread. http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=f3ceHwuac3s

Jim appearing on the Arsenio Hall Show. He performs Kermit and Rowlf the Dog. Its hilarious!!! Different than what you would see in a actual Muppet production. Its also fun to see Levar Burton sitting next to him on the couch as the previous guest.

 

[Christopher]

UPDATE http://www.newsfromme.com/?s=Noel+Blanc Here it is. Yeah, its what I said. Also that Noel makes good money outside of animation and does not want to or need to spend as much time as his father did in a recording studio.

Thanks for clearing that up. It's a shame, though. He would've been the ideal successor. And the voice work for the WB characters has been too inconsistent post-Mel.

 

[cardinal biggles]

There was controversy surrounding a similar technique they used in Superman Returns, and I think they partly recreated his voice, unless I'm wrong?

Are you thinking of Brando's performance as Jor-El? That was all taken from footage Richard Donner shot for Superman II when he was filming I and II simultaneously.

 

[Owain Taggart]

There was controversy surrounding a similar technique they used in Superman Returns, and I think they partly recreated his voice, unless I'm wrong?

Are you thinking of Brando's performance as Jor-El? That was all taken from footage Richard Donner shot for Superman II when he was filming I and II simultaneously.

Yeah, that's the one. But the voice? I knew they had footage, but thought they had to do something with the voice in order to extend his dialogue.

 

[cardinal biggles]

They might have remixed it somehow, but it was all original dialogue Brando spoke back in '77-78. The same footage was incorporated into Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut.

 

[Dick Whitman]

There was controversy surrounding a similar technique they used in Superman Returns, and I think they partly recreated his voice, unless I'm wrong?

Are you thinking of Brando's performance as Jor-El? That was all taken from footage Richard Donner shot for Superman II when he was filming I and II simultaneously.

Yeah, that's the one. But the voice? I knew they had footage, but that they had to do something with the voice.

It was his voice. But some of his unused dialogue was recorded for narration only, not on camera. So his lip movements from footage of him shot on camera had to be digitally alterd to fit different dialogue. Plus a digital 3D model of his head was created so his imagine in the Fortress could be seen from multiple angles. There was an short online doc about it.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Ahh, that was it. Thanks Donald.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I did some checking and Noel Blanc has used his father's voice for merchandise. What I saw was a commercial for a Sylvester and Tweety wall clock. I can't find the commercial online but someone record their own clock here http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITDjARbAlx4

On the general topic, I think reusing old performances of deceased actors can work. But only certain circumstances.

I think Brando in Superman Returns worked. For one it was brief. But mostly because Jor-El is an old recording. Yeah, I know there are different ways of interpreting his presence in the Fortress. That it is his "Spirit". I think its a mixture of some type of interactive Artificial Intelligence. But also specific recorded messages for his son. So he could watch those messages again.

I been thinking if the new Star Trek films ever show the Guardian of Forever again, its original voice could be used again. It seemed like it gave standard answers to questions. Which could suit even new plotlines. Or course it would be limited if there is a desire for more dialogue.

Actually I think Majel Barrett as the computer's voice again would a nice tribute and very affective. She did so many lines over the various series a very diverse database could be created. Also, lets be honest, most of the techno babble is kind of... well babble. Plus it is a flat computer voice, so it would not be noticeable to create new sentences.

 

[Christopher]

First off, Majel's computer voice was only "flat" and monotone in TOS, in which case it might not be possible to separate it from the teletype-like "processing" noise that usually accompanied it (although it's possible that the original isolated audio track of her voice still survives). Second, her voice and delivery changed a lot over the years she was doing the computer in the 24th-century shows; if you listen to it in first-season TNG, it almost sounds like a different person from the computer voice in DS9 or VGR. So it wouldn't be that easy to cut selected words together seemlessly.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Well it was more the idea that was interesting to me. Not that I thought it was practical or necessary.

What spured the notion beyond this thread was Roger Ebert. Who has lost the ability to speak. He has had created for him a computer archive of his voice from old recordings.

 

[Christopher]

^I see. I hadn't heard about that. I looked it up, and although the technology does seem to be advancing, it's not as simple to reconstruct an authentic-sounding voice from existing samples as one might think. Here's a good article on the difficulties:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...uld-make-robert-ebert-sound-more-like-himself

We're not to the point where such a synthesized voice could sound convincingly like a live human voice, and we're certainly nowhere near the point where it could be programmed to give a convincing performance with emotion and nuance and the like. Now that I know where the technology is going, I suppose it's possible that in a few years this same process could create a Siri-type computer voice modelled on Majel Barrett's, since that's a fairly monotone voice without emotional expression (I guess that's what you meant by "flat" before, and I misunderstood that). But recreating not only Jim Henson's voice but his performance, his emotion and delivery style and talent when playing his Muppet charcters, is a whole other matter. That's just pie-in-the-sky.

(Didn't I read somewhere that the developers of that Siri thing actually called it Majel unofficially?)

 

[Dick Whitman]

Yeah, that is what I meant by "flat". Emotionless. I am not a great writer like you. ( I am just getting started reading "Forgotten History") I seem to make multiple edits on every post I make. I was wondering at the time if that was the best choice of word.

I agree I can never see the technology advancing to the point of simulating believable emotional characters like Jim Henson's. That is why all the character choices I suggested were emotionless and artificial originally.

 

[Mistral]

I'm surprised Kermit was the first thing that popped into your head after seeing the Tupac hologram.

I've been half-predicting/half-hoping for digital recreations of new TOS episodes since the 80s. Trials and Tribbilations was a good start in that direction but not quite what I had in mind...

 

[Christopher]

I've been half-predicting/half-hoping for digital recreations of new TOS episodes since the 80s.

I'm just not convinced that's even possible. Even if you could use computers to replicate the look and sound of the actors, that ignores the most crucial elements -- the talent, the personality, the performance. You'd still need human animators and voice-synthesizer operators to decide what expressions to give the characters, how to deliver their lines, and so on. Those things aren't mechanical; they're matters of art and feeling and nuance. And any human being creating such a simulated performance would not make the same choices of expression, intonation, emphasis, delivery, etc. as the original. Maybe a computer could be programmed with a database of a performer's delivery style and run a statistical analysis to model what emphasis or expression an actor was likely to use to deliver a given line, and maybe that working in conjunction with a human operator who has a very good eye and ear for that character's performance style could produce something that was a fairly close simulation. But is that really more desirable than just hiring a new actor and letting them give a genuine, human performance?

 

[Dick Whitman]

We will see if Americans are excepting enough of artificial humans to elect one as President for the first time this fall.....

 

[Sci]

We will see if Americans are excepting enough of artificial humans to elect one as President for the first time this fall.....

The complete lack of emotion, personality, and compassion which Christopher cites as the problem with digital performances is exactly why MittBot 2012 will lose to President Obama next November.

 

[Christopher]

Wow, and I remember people criticizing Mr. Obama for being too intellectual and passionless. Sounds like we might be in for a rather sedate presidential debate season. (Which would actually be a nice respite from all the histrionics elsewhere.)

 

[Dick Whitman]

I was not really talking about Romny's personality. But that everything about his political positions and business success is phoney, fake, a fabrication. He says whatever suits him at the moment. Expecting voters to forget what he was in the past. Like he is constantly rebooted. Like Batman went from Adam West to Michael Keaton to Val Kilmer to George Clooney to Christian Bale.

 

[Hawkeye92]

I've been half-predicting/half-hoping for digital recreations of new TOS episodes since the 80s.

I'm just not convinced that's even possible. Even if you could use computers to replicate the look and sound of the actors, that ignores the most crucial elements -- the talent, the personality, the performance. You'd still need human animators and voice-synthesizer operators to decide what expressions to give the characters, how to deliver their lines, and so on. Those things aren't mechanical; they're matters of art and feeling and nuance. And any human being creating such a simulated performance would not make the same choices of expression, intonation, emphasis, delivery, etc. as the original. Maybe a computer could be programmed with a database of a performer's delivery style and run a statistical analysis to model what emphasis or expression an actor was likely to use to deliver a given line, and maybe that working in conjunction with a human operator who has a very good eye and ear for that character's performance style could produce something that was a fairly close simulation. But is that really more desirable than just hiring a new actor and letting them give a genuine, human performance?

This whole topic kind of reminds me of the song "Free as a Bird" that the Beatles did which had an old recording of John Lennon and added material. I think they did a pretty good job with that, but it definitely is not quite the same. I would say though that the effect they used for his voice does sort of fit in with their style, so it doesn't really pose much of a problem. From what I remember, I think Paul sand along to add more to Johns track and attempted to simulate his voice as closely as possible. I suppose under those circumstances, if you did another animated Trek or Muppets or whatever and had an actor to fill in the bits and pieces, it could work, but what's the point, You might as well get new actors. I think Star Trek could certainly be carried on in animated form with actors who sound and act similar to the originals. Clone Wars is done well, I don't see why Star Trek couldn't be done this way as well.

 

[Sci]

^^ From what I remember, all they did with "Free as a Bird" was take an existing recording of Lennon singing the song, and then add recordings of the other Beatles singing along with the recording -- basically what's already done in the recording studio, with a much longer time interval between vocal tracks. Hardly the same thing as digitally replicating his voice.