OK, F the roman numerals. From this point on, I'm using 7,8 and 9!
Also-- OP edited..
Also-- OP edited..
Last edited:
The Bantha in the room--Leia's role in Episode IX
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
The reshoots done last fall were specifically to beef up Leia's role in VIII, in anticipation of her expected role in IX.
Prior to that, reports had her in a coma for most of the movie following a First Order attack. So it'd be more a matter of reverting back to that earlier cut and then reshooting the end to have her succumb to her injuries, thereby never reuniting with Luke or confronting Kylo Ren.
I would have my theory about Billie play out then, keeping VIII from ending on a complete downer.
Honestly, I don't understand all the panic about Carrie Fisher's death derailing Star Wars. All her material for Episode 8 has already been filmed, so that's fine. Would Episode 9 have a final filming draft of the script written up yet? If not, there's still plenty of time to write around Carrie Fisher's absence.
Now if they do decide to go ahead and have Leia in Episode 9 anyway, I would prefer recasting. Honestly, I'm used to squinting and pretending recast characters are the same anyway. And to be honest, I found CG Tarkin kind of freaky. Also recreating dead actors for movies is setting a dangerous precedent, IMO. Already we have criticisms about actors playing recast characters just doing imitations of the original actor and how it would be preferable to see an actor give their own take on the character. This especially is said about Karl Urban's portrayal of Dr. McCoy, though I personally disagree and think Urban's McCoy is one of the best things of the Abrams movies. Regardless, we also already have people saying they don't want the young Han Solo to imitate Harrison Ford, and this was one of the reasons many in this very forum gave against casting the guy who played a younger version of Ford's character in The Age of Adaline. Now whether or not an actor of a recast character should imitate the actor who came before them or go with their own take is an argument that has many pros and cons for both sides and ultimately the nature of the role and the film are the deciding factors. But I know I would rather watch an actual actor in the role, regardless of which decision they make rather than a CG duplicate of someone else.
And how far do we take this CG duplicating? How long before A-List celebrities who are still living are duplicated for movies because it's cheaper to pay them royalties for their likeness than it is to have them show up and work. A very slippery slope
Now if they do decide to go ahead and have Leia in Episode 9 anyway, I would prefer recasting. Honestly, I'm used to squinting and pretending recast characters are the same anyway. And to be honest, I found CG Tarkin kind of freaky. Also recreating dead actors for movies is setting a dangerous precedent, IMO. Already we have criticisms about actors playing recast characters just doing imitations of the original actor and how it would be preferable to see an actor give their own take on the character. This especially is said about Karl Urban's portrayal of Dr. McCoy, though I personally disagree and think Urban's McCoy is one of the best things of the Abrams movies. Regardless, we also already have people saying they don't want the young Han Solo to imitate Harrison Ford, and this was one of the reasons many in this very forum gave against casting the guy who played a younger version of Ford's character in The Age of Adaline. Now whether or not an actor of a recast character should imitate the actor who came before them or go with their own take is an argument that has many pros and cons for both sides and ultimately the nature of the role and the film are the deciding factors. But I know I would rather watch an actual actor in the role, regardless of which decision they make rather than a CG duplicate of someone else.
And how far do we take this CG duplicating? How long before A-List celebrities who are still living are duplicated for movies because it's cheaper to pay them royalties for their likeness than it is to have them show up and work. A very slippery slope
While I can understand getting the family's consent for using a CG duplicate, I don't see how it's their place to give permission for recasting. To be blunt, Carrie Fisher did not own the rights to Princess Leia the character. Her family has no input on recasting and Disney doesn't need to seek their permission to recast the character.
I don't give a frog's fat ass about legalese. Consulting the family is just the right thing to do.
Again, I don't see how it is. Characters are recast all the time without the permission of the original actors. Carrie Fisher's permission wasn't needed to get a new voice actor for Leia on Rebels, Harrison Ford and Billy Dee Williams didn't need to give their permission for recasting Han and Lando. I don't think any original actor has ever given permission for their characters to be recast. Nor in cases where a character is recast because of an actor's death, has the permission of their family been sought to recast the characters.
Of course, they ARE recast without permission. Doesn't mean they SHOULD be.
At least not in this case.
What if they say, "You have our permission as long as you pay us a boatload of money."
While that's true, presumably the trilogy will be to some (probably large) degree centered on the redemption of Kylo Ren, and his mother probably had a somewhat important part in it in the original plans.
I have little interest in prequels as a rule. I was willing to give Rogue One the benefit of the doubt because I thought they would try to tell its own story. It ended up as an unfocused, fanwanking mess though, so any optimism I once had for the expanded film universe is pretty much out the window.
General Hux refers to him as "Ren", though. So, there's nothing wrong that if it's understood who one is referring to.
The actor in question is under no obligation to allow usage of their likeness, though, especially if the paycheck isn't suitable.
If they can wrap up her story in episode 8 with what she has filmed and give the character a good send off then it's fine with me if episode 8 is the last movie she is in. Luke can take her place as the one confronting Kylo Ren over Solo's death and redeeming him.
If however what she filmed for episode 8 left things wide open then maybe they can try to do some CGI to finish her story, but not too much, as little as they need to. I would personally prefer her last film to be one she had actually filmed. I think recasting is a no no. 7,8 & 9 should stand on her performance.
If however what she filmed for episode 8 left things wide open then maybe they can try to do some CGI to finish her story, but not too much, as little as they need to. I would personally prefer her last film to be one she had actually filmed. I think recasting is a no no. 7,8 & 9 should stand on her performance.
True, but look at it from their perspective. A few million and all they have to do is sign a consent form and maybe spend a few hours being scanned by CG technicians. In other words, free money. I doubt very many are going to object.
I doubt it will ever reach that point. At the moment, if they want to use Tom Cruise for a movie, then they hire and pay Tom Cruise. If they replace him in a role by CGIing him, then they will need to pay Tom Cruise for his likeness and permission, hire a body-double, and either use Tom Cruise for his voice or hire a third person as a voice-actor.
Where the technology is hitting it's stride however will be in de-aging and aging of characters, and seamless use on stunt doubles making it almost impossible to tell the actual actor isn't performing the stunts themselves. Perhaps even saving actors from the rigours of hours every day in the make-up chair for a non-human role.
I don't know if panic is the right word, but I think fans are curious about how this will play out because indications seemed to be that Leia was to have an important role in redeeming Kylo Ren. As others in this thread have mentioned, some involved in the project have said that Leia was going to have a major confontation with Kylo Ren at some point, I'm guessing the end of episode IX. Familial connections, especially parent-child, have played a large role in Star Wars, so it would only seem fitting that Kylo Ren's connection with his mother would play a significant role in how his story plays out. Carrie's death certainly throws a wrench in this plan, and means we may not get to see the story play out as intended.
I would not have a problem with using CGI, especially for smaller scenes. I actually did not even realize that Tarkin was CGI while watching Rogue One (I thought it was a very similar looking actor), so clearly it doesn't bother me as much as some others. However, if this supposed confrontation with Kylo Ren is truly what they had planned, then that would require a lot of emotional depth that I don't think can or should be pulled off with CGI. Imagine if Han's death scene had been CGI? That raw human emotion is essential to acting in a scene like that. If they plan to continue on this path, then recasting would be the only option.
If they rewrite the story, the most likely outcome is that they use CGI combined with recasting to give her small scenes in episode IX that explain her absence/death. As others have said, they could be scenes from a distance, from behind, etc. Her role in confronting Kylo Ren is given to somebody else - probably Luke.
Another possibility that I haven't seen mentioned, but that I would prefer, is having her appear in CGI as a force-ghost. They could explain her death in the opening crawl or do some small scenes to show how it happens. Then, later in the film she is able to communicate with both Luke and Kylo Ren, through the force. It also means they could use the likeness of younger Leia, as in Rogue One, though I would be fine with current Leia too. I actually think this would be a fitting tribute. It would respect that she is no longer with us, while recognizing Leia's important connection to the force.
Prefer to leave Leia's role in Ep 8 is it was intended. Don't recut it and remove a big chunk of her last performance as Leia. If she was intended to have an even bigger role in Ep 9, rewrite it to give more of it to Luke, and then recast someone to play her for a minimized role. Rather see that than CGI'ing her, but do what you can to reduce her screen time without removing the character from the important conclusion of the arc.
Don't want to lose the footage we've got of her, and don't want to throw the back half of the trilogy away because no one wants a stand-in, either. Use what you can, minimize going forward, and get someone to help close out the character arc.
Don't want to lose the footage we've got of her, and don't want to throw the back half of the trilogy away because no one wants a stand-in, either. Use what you can, minimize going forward, and get someone to help close out the character arc.
You have to look back to the decision JJ made to give the OT actors a major role in the new films. This included to sending Carrie and Mark to boot-camp to drop weight.
They knew that there was a liability in doing this, hence the big insurance rider on Carrie Fisher that is now being exercised. They chose to accept the risk.
In retrospect maybe what they should have done is not tempt fate and find a way to get the old actors to pass the torch off to the new ones by the end of Force Awakens. Instead they chose only to do this for Harrison Ford (which probably was largely economically motivated based on the astronomical sum I heard he got for that one film).
They used Luke as a tease, bringing him onto the screen only at the very end of Force Awakens. Leia's role "expanding" for 8 and 9 also falls into that pattern of sort of teasing the audience with a carrot
Really, it all boils down to a case of sentimentality for the OT blinding the studio to prudent risk-management and now they're going to have to pay a heavy price in retconning the script around Carrie's death.
They knew that there was a liability in doing this, hence the big insurance rider on Carrie Fisher that is now being exercised. They chose to accept the risk.
In retrospect maybe what they should have done is not tempt fate and find a way to get the old actors to pass the torch off to the new ones by the end of Force Awakens. Instead they chose only to do this for Harrison Ford (which probably was largely economically motivated based on the astronomical sum I heard he got for that one film).
They used Luke as a tease, bringing him onto the screen only at the very end of Force Awakens. Leia's role "expanding" for 8 and 9 also falls into that pattern of sort of teasing the audience with a carrot
Really, it all boils down to a case of sentimentality for the OT blinding the studio to prudent risk-management and now they're going to have to pay a heavy price in retconning the script around Carrie's death.
Stop trying to blame Abrams and Kennedy for her death. All of the main actors have insurance policies out on them because the loss of any of them could result in financial losses on the movies. Fisher's weight has been up and down for most of the last 20 years. Sometimes shit just happens.
"Tempt fate"? Carrie Fisher was 60, Mark Hamill is 65. While it's not uncommon for people to die at that age, it is also very common for people to live much longer. You're talking as though they approached actors in their mid to late 90s who had known health problems that could die any day now and committed them to three movies over the next six years. By your logic, even a young and healthy actor in their 20s is "at risk" as you never know when they could have an unfortunate accident.
^Yeah, just look at Anton Yelchin.
Oh, I didn't realize that.
Similar threads
