CGI Leia Actually A Problem?

When a beloved actress and writer like Carrie Fisher passes away, it is devastating in many ways. Her meaning to the Star Wars franchise was and is tremendous – while she was the only strong female character in the original trilogy, she also was the character, who didn't let her metal bikini and heavy chains to bother her when it was the time to do something for her own situation. Later Leia became a general and sources like CinemaBlend say that general Leia was going to be an important character in these three new Star Wars movies (episodes VII-IX) by Disney.

According to several entertainment sites, including ScreenRant, Carrie Fisher among the others had finished shooting for Star Wars VIII, so there is a strong possibility her role in this film stays intact. But sources also claim she was going to have a significant role in Star Wars IX, a film which is not ”canned” yet. A meeting about this issue will be held among the creators soon in this month. So, what are their options?

1. Replace the actress with another

The good old soap opera trick – when the actor or actress gets too old or tired into his or her role, another one replaces him or her and the soapy life continues. Yes, Star Wars is a space opera, and although in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story we got to see at least two familiar charactersplayed by new faces, these were just small character roles. Just a glimpse to the social media can show us that for many viewers Carrie Fisher was Leia, one and only.

Leia is not DoctorWho, Superman or James Bond, a character, who could easily be accepted with a new face at this point. However, it isn't totally out of the question. In that case this could be the dream role for many older actresses, stars, who have waited for a big and interesting franchise role but haven't seen any, since movies like these usually don't offer such.

If the casting is done well, Fisher could be replaced with someone, who just surprises everybody positively. So, who should audition? Not Meryl Streep, because she is not the actress you're looking for (let the others have a chance). But how about Jessica Harper (Suspiria, Phantom of the Paradise)? A dark-haired cult actress from the 1970's and a music maker, whose latest role was a curious minor part in Spielberg's Minority Report. Yes, she is some years older than Fisher was, but she has youthful spirit in her and suitable charisma. Or if more rock'n'roll is needed, get Debbie Harry (Videodrome) there. She still has that something. She also has sense of humour for unusual hairdos.

2. Replace the actress with the help of CGI

Jurassic Park was awesome, and it still is, although the film was made in the early 1990's, while CGI was still not widely used. When The Crow came out in 1994, Brandon Lee's sudden death had to be covered with difficult CGI tricks. Since then the technology has taken large steps forward. Motion/performance capture acting is so great that most of the viewers of Avatar (2009) were very content with what they saw. Performance capture could be the key to keep Leia in action as it was planned.

But the problem with CGI is, if you are using even slighly less capable technology than somebody else or watch your creations so long that your eyes become blind to their possible faults, no matter how much time and effort was used with them, the end result will not please the hawk-eyed audience.
 

Also the publicity could be a problem; when it was published Rogue One has a familiar character created with the aid of CGI, the attention was suddenly drawn to that more than it probably should have been. The CGI Tarkin, or zombified Tarkin (as I like to call him – I will explain later why), could have been presented in the first place to the public not as a computer creation but as a character played by a new actor with pretty good hi-tech makeup. If the publicity had been handled a bit differently, I doubt we would have now much less talk about how ”everybody” knew right away that was CGI and how it ruined the whole movie from many.

Rogue One also has a CGI version of young Leia. Unlike with Tarkin, many seemed to have less problems with her appearance. To me she looked too polished and honestly also too happy. The character was in this situation, where she had to rush away with something very important, which had just caused a terribly amount of deaths. But if the director of that scene (read: not necessarily the director of the movie but for example the producer) wanted to show there a very naive person with a new toy, of course we couldn't then have there at least slightly worrying but still somehow relieved and strong-minded person instead.

It seems that the CGI Tarkin got a lot of backlash, because many think it would to be so very simple to take a person's appearance after the person's death.

Peter Cushing, the original Tarkin, died in 1994. Although the creators of this CGI Tarkin tried to explain the process in public, media had already brought up the negative side of it. The actor's family may have agreed with the company and given it a permission to use the late actor's appearance in this way, but there are still many, who can't see it like a CGI makeup on somebody living and breathing but rather like something totally unnatural and unreal.

I myself call this creation as zombified Tarkin, because to me he (not "it") is lacking too many emotions. Yes, Tarkin has a stiff upper lip. Yes, he is bad. Yes, he wants power. But if you look at Cushing's original performance, his Tarkin is not all that hard and one dimensional. He is calculating and wise. He is not afraid to walk into some important meeting with cozy slippers (although we don't see them, his attitude channels them – this is a man, who enjoys also something else than just blowing up things).

A CGI version of older Leia could be a possibility, if the family of the late actress is ok with the idea and there's enough time, money and patience to spend into not only realistic skin texture and that all but also into the recreation of the character's true spirit. After this it is most important to do the publicity well, remembering that fans love not just these characters but also their original actors – real human beings. It doesn't have to be overly sugared though – imagine, what Carrie Fisher would say, if she was still able to be there.

3. Replace Leia with other characters

After Carrie Fisher passed away, we learned she was connected not only to Star Wars VIII but also to Star Wars IX. That means, Leia wasn't probably going to die in some horrible battle in Star Wars VIII. Because Star Wars VIII premieres in December 2017, at this point we don't yet know its plot. There are rumours and that is it.

The Empire is trying to get on its feet again in some form, so Leia will probably be left in Star Wars VIII on some dangerous ground. Her passing away could be written on the traditional opening crawl. You may say it's too simple and wrong for this important character. However, it wouldn't be the first time, when in Star Wars something that big was summed up in the yellow text that floats through the space: the whole Rogue One basically is the opening crawl of Star Wars IV (although in the 1970's George Lucas probably didn't even dream about prequel like Rogue One).

The opening crawl could also suggest that she has gone missing (in action). Luke, his brother, may sense her, they may try to search her, but there's probably too much going on on the battlefield and without Leia the other characters must find quickly courage to do what she would have done and keep the rebel spirit on. This is a great spot to develop the other characters. Maybe Billie Lourd's Connix is one of them? That would be nice fan service too, since she is Fisher's daughter.

When the battle is finally over, there may be no place to Leia to return. Maybe the dark side will win. But Leia may still be somewhere there - we could see somebody like her from the backside or from the distance but we could also see that she has found something with hope. This could be something ancient, something almost forgotten from the past of the Jedi. It would honour the character and its late actress to give Leia finally a chance to pursue herself to learn how to use the Force. Plus, it would keep the audience still hopeful after all those possible losses.

May the Force be with you.

3 Times 3 Dimensions

Easy, that's what everybody desires. But easy there hardly ever is. In the past few months I've been reading many comments saying: 3D is giving nothing extra to this movie, except...
A) a headache from hell/ a pain in my neck/ a hurt on my nose/ all these
B) darkened image (Real3D and Imax cinemas use polarized glasses)
C) unnatural/ pixelized shots

Is it really that difficult to make a good, entertaining 3D movie? It's been tried many times in the history of movies (the earliest attempts were before talkies) but not since the past few years Hollywood has tried this hard to succeed with it. James Cameron's Avatar (2009) was the beginning of this new attempt, boom or whatever you wish to call it. In think Avatar is still on of the few good 3D movies. Why?

Avatar
The creators of Avatar focused on 3D. They had to make also a 2D version of the movie, which is still made of every upcoming 3D movie. But since Avatar was marketed as an experience in 3D, its creators could put all their knowledge and power behind this technique. In other words, they didn't have to compromise so much, they could think what actually works in 3D. The film became visually very beautiful. You can actually sense how would it feel to be in the forests of Pandora, a distant moon where the story takes place.

FS-Film Oy

Nevertheless Avatar is said to be a poor or just mediocre movie, at least if it's seen in 2D. I can't prove this myself, because I refuse to view Avatar in 2D. My reason for that is simple. Every hardcore film fanatic knows, what a poor picture quality, terribly trasmitted sound, hideous pan & scan etc. can do for any movie. Let's just say that you want to watch Gone With the Wind or Blade Runner on 2.5" screen with half-working headphones. That is possible and you can probably follow the plot somehow even in that way but... When you view the same film in cinema, your experiece will be totally different. The whole picture becomes clearer in many ways. ;)

Pina
It took this long before I had a chance to find as powerful 3D experience as Avatar was. Wim Wenders' Pina (2011), a documentary of a German choreographer and dancer Pina Bausch, is another 3D movie that I wish never to see in a flat 2D format. When you have a chance to see performance arts in all three dimensions, and you've given an ability to choose, where to focus in the act, that's something 2D can't beat. Pina actually swallowed me and the others into the story every time when Bausch's dance group was telling about Pina Bausch and their feelings through dance. Unfortunately Wenders had cut talking heads and dialogue in the middle of dance sequences. To me it felt like he had no trust or courage to let these people speak through the only international language: dance. This kind of cutting interrupted this otherwise cunning and powerful movie in an ugly way at times. Still, I wish a lot of success to this flick. It's a ground-breaking documentary which also remembers Pina in a truly warm way via movements and gestures.

Bio Rex Distr.

What these two movies, Avatar and Pina, can teach us about good 3D is:
A) the movie has to be written, directed and shot for this format especially
B) the technique must still be developed

Tintin
Yes, development we need, would Yoda say. Too many different techniques in different cinemas, clumsy glasses and poor seats can spoil even a movie which is written, directed and shot well. On the same day when I saw Pina, I went to see Steven Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin (2011). It captured nicely the spirit of Hergé's comic books, although in the end it wasn't like them at all. Before I'll go deeper with this issue, a few words of the 3D glasses.

Buena Vista International

I don't use glasses regularly, but I can imagine what an agony it must be if you'll have to view a movie with double glasses. Even with one pair of glasses it can be disturbing; the one-size-for-all 3D goggles sink deep into your skin in about 45 minutes. In bright scenes you may lose your focus on the film, when you'll spot the face of the person behind you from the surface of your glasses. If your seat is not from the middle of everybody else, but too far or too close to the screen, you'll probably miss the best of the pop-out effects. (A good 3D movie should of course offer more than a weapon or a monster that pops out of the screen every now and then. I'll come to this subject later back...) A glasses free 3D technology is in development, which is a very pleasing thing. The sooner it will be ready, the better. Many 3D glasses use batteries, so this new technologue could probably save us from pain but also from spending both money and environment.

As I said, a good 3D movie is more than things popping out from the screen. In The Adventures of Tintin Spielberg and co. had chosen to use motion capture technique. It was used to make animated characters more live-like. It's probably a difficult method for actors, who'll find their role characters from masks, clothes and other things they can sense around them. While Lars von Trier was making his Dogville (2003), I recall some actors mentioning how strange it was to act in a set that was mereley some lines on the floor. In theatres, if a director wants so, it's more common to put actors (and audiences) to imagine things rather showing them in the most realistic way. For example, a scene may have only a seat and an actor but you don't need more than his words and gestures to understand that he's a king and that space around him is his court.

Motion capture doesn't need huge theatre acting gestures but if the actor and the other movie making crew understands the world of theatre, it might help their working. Also, if they're making a 3D movie, they could learn something from the world of theatre. The Adventures of Tintin is good on the level of acting. Especially Andy Serkis as captain Haddock is hilarious. He pushes the limits of the character as the animators have pushed its limits in the transformation from a comic book drawing to 3D animated anti-hero. You know that is Haddock there, he breaths and you can imagine how hairy his beard feels, but most importantly he acts like Haddock by Hergé.

The Adventures of Tintin is not that perfect on the level of 3D. Its plot is interesting, not in a way as it would be with a Kieslowski drama, but in a way of an entertaining adventure movie. There's always something happening and although Tintin is just as unsexual, super good and nice (read: boring) as in the cominc books, something makes you to keep your attention in the story. But on the level of 3D it's bit of a compromise movie. When the production company wants to sell the movie also in 2D, you'll have to think what works in this (still more popular) format. However, The Adventures of Tintin has also at least one interesting 3D idea. It actually makes the film worth of seeing in 3D.

It's not usual to shoot the story like the movie-goer were one of the characters. Julian Schnabel put the audience to see the world through the eye of a paralyzed man in Le scaphandre et le papillon (2007), and in film noir Lady in the Lake (1947) the main character is also seen only as a reflection in mirrors and windows. In The Adventures of Tintin there's several scenes, where the character's point of view helps you to "sink into the movie". When you're seeing in 3D the same as the character, you feel like being part of the adventure.

In general, 3D needs imagination. If there's a reason to shoot something in black and white instead of colour, there should be also reason/ reasons to shoot something in 3D instead of 2D. In the film's narrative has to be something that uses the given tools well and makes the exprience worth of remembering (in positive way). Perhaps film makers should go back to basics, back to theatre, and start to build the imaginated worlds from very simple pieces. If you'll begin with a fuss, with compromises between 2D and 3D and cheap "let's just throw some stuff on the audience" ideas, you could as well just burn those film making dollars.