• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Rogue One and TOS actors

I liked the way Tarkin came out - he wasn't quite right, especially the eyes part of the time, but it left room for an expanded explanation somewhere that maybe Tarkin had optical implants or something. And any CG creepiness just added to his vibe.

But Princess Leia was just kind of creepy, and it was a good thing she didn't have much screen time.

I have no problem with doing more with the TOS characters, or "younger" TNG/DS9/VOY characters - get some good voice actors who can stay true to them, and go. But go full animated. The CG isn't quite there YET except for characters for whom the Uncanny Valley is actually working a little in their favor, like Tarkin (sort of), and especially like Clu from "Tron: Legacy".
 
jiFfM.jpg
 
Only for very short scren time and only if an important link to TOS.

I really hate the thing they did in the last episode of ENT by having Troi and Riker there in flash-back praising Archer and his crew like demi-gods- who they never mentioned once in 7 seasons of TNG.
I would hate the technique to be used as a tool to legitimise the "Discovery" crew. Having a Lieutenant Kirk say "I wish one day I could be as Captain of the Discovery". It would have to be subtler than than for my liking.
I'm a big TOS original cast fan but I would get a kick out of seeing a re-cast younger Scotty say who was not Simon Pegg.
 
In most cases, I think less is more. I was hugely impressed with skinny Steve Rogers and young Hank Pym in the Marvel movies. Young Tony Stark was slightly weird but technically he was a CGI creation anyway.

[SPOLERS] Tarkin's appearance was nice, since it was a clear homage, but I would have preferred it if more of his scenes had been engineered to be via viewscreen, where slight distortion of the image could have better masked the slightly cartoony quality.

I didn't really like Leia's appearance but mainly because I would have preferred them to splice footage from Star Wars rather than go full CGI. I'm sure there is a scene when she is hiding from the storm troopers where she has her hood up and she turns side on.

I've always been quite keen on splicing Yeoman Rand's head onto some of the random yeoman seen on the bridge in seasons 2 and 3. She had no lines in her final appearance, but even if she has no lines, it would be great to see the beehive bobbing around on the bridge.
 
I enjoyed the Tarkin scenes in Rogue One, they were well done and quite impressive in their own right. The only problem is that I knew that it is was a trick, that I wasn't really watching Peter Cushing, and that took me out of the story a little bit each time.
 
Last edited:
Rogue One was so overrated it makes my head spin. I can't even remember a single character except Gin Rummy.

Wait a minute...what was the question again?
 
I quite like Rogue One, for showing moral ambiguity in the Rebellion, and especially for the
Dirty Dozen-esque ending
. But that's a topic for another discussion.

I just think CGI is not yet at the point where artificial people are convincing. I found Tarkin and Leia to be off-putting and bogus. I would hate to see the TOS crew depicted in such a manner.

Kor
 
Last edited:
Imagine though they could return to Vulcan with Spock again only this time Stonn (Lawrence Montaigne) wouldn't be wearing that black vest under his top this time! :lol:
JB
 
I thought Cushing was excellent in Rogue except that his voice wasn't the great man's! Leia was good but a bit off somehow!
JB
 
The technology will only improve if it continues to be used and refined.

We can gripe about how much we dislike said technology and push against it ever being used again because it was so bad, or we can embrace further use in the hopes of improving the technology.

I mean, it's a no-win situation. I really thought CGI was cheesy when it was first introduced. Look at the state of the art now! You have to put up with the bad to eventually get the good.

As a personal note, I was blown away by both Tarkin AND Leia. Although I have mixed feelings about using Nimoy. More of a "should we" as opposed to "can we" question.
 
We are still a little bit away from really good CGI actor recreation. Tron Legacy was good but Tarkin in Rogue One was steps above that. It wont take long before you cannot tell the difference(aka. there will be no uncanny valley).

Recasting is crap. The JJ Abrams movies prove that. I'm all in favor of creating more Kirk era Trek with CGI actors. With two caveats. First aside from looking like the originals they must act and sound like the originals. Second, the stories and effects must be done as if they had been made in the '60s. Anything else would just be moneygrab bullshit.
 
I agree that recasting is crap, but I don't like the idea of having full CG actors/environments based on TOS as well. However, I'm in favor of having a 'new' TOS with new actors aboard the Enterprise and new stories, only following the same uniforms, ships and visuals of TOS (and not changing everything like they did with Next Generation and the following sequels). It would be a 2017 show with 60's aesthetycs. Kirk, Spock, Bones and the rest of the original crew could be mentioned here and there eventually, in one story or another, but that's all.

CG actors are ok, but when you start going that route, something is wrong...just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting how the CGI people in Rogue One have elicited polar opposite reactions.

Kor
 
What actors do is really being ignored and discounted, here. What if the CGI were absolutely seamless and perfect? Would that eliminate all problems except for a feeling of creepiness? No, because the artistry and nuances of acting actually matter. Those characters were created partly through the actor's thoughts and perspectives and personality, which are unique to each actor.
-----------------
those qualities are really what make us want to recreate them again, and it's the aspect which will not be there.
 
What actors do is really being ignored and discounted, here. What if the CGI were absolutely seamless and perfect? Would that eliminate all problems except for a feeling of creepiness? No, because the artistry and nuances of acting actually matter. Those characters were created partly through the actor's thoughts and perspectives and personality, which are unique to each actor.
-----------------
those qualities are really what make us want to recreate them again, and it's the aspect which will not be there.

Which is why I think you must have a real actor underneath the CGI. The CGI should just be like a layer of makeup.
 
Recasting is crap. The JJ Abrams movies prove that.

Hold up.

There have probably been literally billions of characters recast over the last 150 years. Throw in theatre, and the practice has been going on since practically the dawn of dramatic performance.

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

There have probably been literally billions of characters recast over the last 150 years. Throw in theatre, and the practice has been going on since practically the dawn of dramatic performance.

But JJ Abrams is the one guy that just, all of sudden, definitively 'proved' the practice 'bad'?
.

Nobody will ever match the original cast of Macbeth
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top