And soon as they have money.
Spoilers The Roddenberry Archive brings every iteration of Star Trek’s USS Enterprise bridge to life
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Good point.
Well, this was obviously done with Paramount's consent, so they're clearly aware of it. I also found it interesting that the costumes came from Sony and that the sound mixing came from Skywalker sound / Lucasfilm and that special thanks was given to Kevin Feige of Marvel Studios. I think there are a lot of people out there who are interested in what's being presented here, as they should be.
Last edited:
I think there is interest, but the costs continue to be challenging. In my opinion they have a strong appeal for this technology, but the ability to put more money down with the streaming bubble trying so hard to burst it makes going after something experimental far more daunting.
I’m fine with these projects being restricted to short YouTube clips online. I don’t want to see the studios pushing forward with this tech on actual shows and films for Trek. I despised deepfake Skywalker in Mando so much that the entire emotional conceit of it all just fell flat for me, at worst it annoyed me. Even rewatching “Unification”, I’m pulled out. Between the awful toupee and body posturing by Sam Witwer, the fact it’s NOT Shatner and Nimoy but digital masks on other actors, makes it impossible for me to be invested in the story. Even if the tech becomes more seamless in the future it won’t matter because simply knowing it’s digital faces on stand in actors prevents me from seeing it as anything other than creepy.
I enjoy these for what they are - short films intended as a tribute to the actors and the characters, essentially a live-action comic. They work beautifully on that level.
But I think they made the right call not to have them speak. I don't want to see these tools used to put "Shatner" and "Nimoy" into new episodes or films.
One of the great decisions Star Trek has always made is to recast characters and allow for new interpretations of those characters. From the Kelvin crew to SNW, they are actors performing role, not merely doing an impression of Shatner or Nimoy or Nichelle Nichols.
Star Wars has recently gone the other way, with eerie CGI exhumations of beloved actors. I think this is both in poor taste, and creatively bankrupt. Recast, or even better, create new characters! Sadly, they seem to have taken the wrong lessons from Solo's flop.
OTOY have done a great job keeping this in the "good taste" zone, but I worry about how this technology could be used in such a way to cross the line.
Good video here on the implications of these CGI recreations.
But I think they made the right call not to have them speak. I don't want to see these tools used to put "Shatner" and "Nimoy" into new episodes or films.
One of the great decisions Star Trek has always made is to recast characters and allow for new interpretations of those characters. From the Kelvin crew to SNW, they are actors performing role, not merely doing an impression of Shatner or Nimoy or Nichelle Nichols.
Star Wars has recently gone the other way, with eerie CGI exhumations of beloved actors. I think this is both in poor taste, and creatively bankrupt. Recast, or even better, create new characters! Sadly, they seem to have taken the wrong lessons from Solo's flop.
OTOY have done a great job keeping this in the "good taste" zone, but I worry about how this technology could be used in such a way to cross the line.
Good video here on the implications of these CGI recreations.
I wouldn't say that was a great decision and it's especially not one that Star Trek has always made. It did it once for Saavik in 1984, cast different people as their alternate universe counterparts in 2009 and then gave us younger versions of TOS characters in Disco and SNW. There are probably other examples (people like to bring up that glimpse of hologram T'Pau in Voyager), but generally Star Trek's approach has traditionally been to move on and make new characters.
The choice made in the Mandalorian and Book of Boba Fett led to some great moments that wouldn't have worked properly with a recasting, though I'm definitely on the side of 'de-aging good in moderation, resurrecting dead actors less good'.
There’s three Alexanders, three Ziyals, there were nearly three Saaviks, various guest stars have been recast, including Braxton and Admiral Paris.
But yes, as I said my preference is to create new characters.
I always forget the Alexanders and Ziyals, I guess because they were kids and wearing a mask. Those worked out for the most part I think. I still don't remember Paris being recast. Braxton was a case of 'good actor... but he's not the same character at all.'
Yup, though it's not surprising that you forgot as Warren Munson's appearances in the second and fifth seasons as Paris were brief cameos and the second as a VA one anyway, whereas Richard Herd's appearances were more substantial.
The Ziyals were all adults.
Warren Munson played Admiral Paris in Persistence of Vision and Thirty Days. Richard Herd took over the role in Pathfinder and all the remainder of his appearances.
Two years older than Jake Sisko, that's still pretty young!
I was actually referring to the actresses ages. At the time each was cast, they were 23, 25 and 34.
Maybe it wanted to join starfleet.
I'm gonna admit that i hate the J's design, but the idea it's a cosmozoan that's serving as a starship, possibly even one of the actual farpoint entities hoping to pay homage to the ship that came to its aid. That feels so very awesome.
Hadn't thought of that but that is actually a very cool concept. It is an intelligent shape-shifter. It honestly fits!
Fun Fact: It's called a Cnidarian Defender in Star Trek Online. It's my main go-to ship - probably the most badass ship in the game.
Fun Fact: It's called a Cnidarian Defender in Star Trek Online. It's my main go-to ship - probably the most badass ship in the game.
I'm fine with the CGI'ng if the living actor (like Hamill in SW or in this case, Shatner) OKs it, and if the actor is dead, the family/estate OKs it (like with Cushing).
These are actors. We don't start thinking that an actor is a killer in real life just because they might play one on tv, so I'm not sure why suddenly the audience would think so if a CGI version of them acted in such a role (in regards to Tarkin, his blowing up Scarif was no different than his blowing up Alderaan, and Cushing had no problem acting that so I'm not sure why he would have problems with his CGI self doing the equivalent if he were alive). As long as the legal i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, and the family gets compensated for use of the likeness, I don't see an issue with it
The only deceased actor recreated by SW is Cushing to my knowledge, and his estate gave permission. Hamill himself has no problem with young CGI self showing up in Mando (He even cheekily tweeted "Anyone watch tv recently?" when his young self first showed up), so I'm not sure why you're in a place to claim his CGI was in poor taste when Hamill himself had no such concerns.
These are actors. We don't start thinking that an actor is a killer in real life just because they might play one on tv, so I'm not sure why suddenly the audience would think so if a CGI version of them acted in such a role (in regards to Tarkin, his blowing up Scarif was no different than his blowing up Alderaan, and Cushing had no problem acting that so I'm not sure why he would have problems with his CGI self doing the equivalent if he were alive). As long as the legal i's are dotted and the t's are crossed, and the family gets compensated for use of the likeness, I don't see an issue with it
Indeed. It takes something away from other actors and their option to step in to these roles and play them out.
Recasting, to me, is a non-issue. It strikes me as more than a little inflexible to say only one actor can play a particular role. Like, what's even the point of acting at this point?
I agree it's in poor taste because it basically is demanding time freeze and that actors be held hostage to one role forever, even post mortum.
After they're dead they're not going to be alive to care about being "held hostage to one role" or "typecasting". I would certainly hope, if there is an afterlife (which is also unproven), that one's time is better spent than quibbling over minor issues from their mortal life that their descendants would be financially compensated for anyway.
Similar threads
