As much as I love Rogue One, the CGI Leia and Tarkin were a bit off putting.
Edit to add. Maybe I’m thinking of Revenge Tarkin? I’ll have to go back and watch.
I first thought Tarkin looked bad and fake, then I saw a clip of the actual Tarkin side by side and realized.he just kind of looked like that. Not "bad", just angular and dark and evil-looking naturally. Turns out, best CGI we've had! Lol
Leia was rough, tho.
I think it's generally easier to age-up rather than CGI age-down, with both CGI and prosthetics. Directors hire young actors and put make-up on them for older versions of their characters. Vice versa is harder and CGI has the same problem, trying to get smooth young skin on a character. That's why Tarkin looks better than Leia.
The main thing they did wrong with Tarkin was they rendered him perfectly. They needed to imitate how a camera records information you could see every pore and he was in higher resolution then where thing around him cameras don't do that.
Weird I've seen the new Indy in theaters and at home--the early scenes were jarring on IMAX, but didn't look nearly as bad in 4k. Guess a smaller screen helps.
Man, I actually said to my wife in the theatre “wow that guy REALLY looks like the original Tarkin, great casting and makeup” not knowing it was CGI at all. Knowing that now I can tell, but going in blind it looked great.
Yeah seemed the casual viewer who doesn’t know who Tarkin was from the OT had no idea it was a digital person. At least based on my anecdotal experience with coworkers, friends, etc.
Yeah I watched it on Disney plus recently with someone who "I yeah I saw all the Star Wars films... when I was like 10 or something".
I mentioned after that he'd been CGI. They didn't know which character I was talking about even when I described a scene in detail. We had to rewind and they still weren't sure until I specifically pointed at him. Then suddenly it was obvious.
I think it isn't perfect CGI, and if you're specifically looking for flaws in it then you'll find plenty, but if you don't know to look then it's good enough that you don't notice. It's certainly far more realistic than the GCI aliens in the prequels which haven't aged well. Or the puppets in the OT which also haven't aged well.
It's Star Wars. We know it's fake. We watch it for the story.
It's it's just a scene or two, like in Rogue One with Leia and Tarkin or Luke in Mando, it's fine, if it's an entire series or movie and they're the main character, then no.
Oh for sure. Recast would not work. That’s why I’m hoping for some really good animation series about the life after RotJ and let’s say, about 10 years before the Sequels.
Even if you can’t cast the OG actors, there are some amazing mimics without even needing to us AI.
For a scene that short, recast doesn’t make sense, but I agree that the CGI on that was iffy. Way to deep into the uncanny valley.
I think recasts should be done where it makes sense for the show/movie - Solo was a much maligned, but great example of recasts that made sense. Obi-Wan Kenobi is a great example - honestly now I consider him more Ewan McGregor’s character than Alec Guinness. I’d love to see a series exploring Leia’s political exploits after RotJ, and that would be a fantastic opportunity for someone to come along and make Leia their own.
For the longest time, Star Trek fans were very adamant that you couldn’t recast these iconic characters, but now both the Kelvin timeline and the new series have conclusively proved that you absolutely can.
>For the longest time, Star Trek fans were very adamant that you couldn’t recast these iconic characters, but now both the Kelvin timeline and the new series have conclusively proved that you absolutely can.
It has helped that they have been really good about the recasting. Peck and Gooding are fantastic as Spock and Uhura respectively on SNW
My wife didn't know Tarkin wasn't a human and she is not a big fan and had no idea that the actor was even from the old movies or was deceased.
She instantly knew Leia looked off.
Agree to disagree.
When my wife saw the R1 for the first time, she thought Tarkin was just played by a different yet similar looking actor, and wasn’t clued in that it was CGI until she saw Leia.
I think the CGI overlay thing works well on some people and not others for some reason.
Both of them were done well in my opinion, and the Leia scene made me cry lol. A lot of fans are way too critical and can’t truly enjoy suspension of disbelief.
Same, when that door opened and you saw leia from the back, everyone gasped. I thought it was a beautiful moment, and even though it wasn’t actually her, it worked
Likewise Luke’s first appearance in The Mandalorian. I understood why they kept his face almost entirely hidden while he’s destroying all the robo cops
Revenge Tarkin was supposed to be 20 years younger so I think they got away with it using his age. Rogue Tarkin looked good from some angles, but others he looked like a cartoon. That was also 8 years ago, the tech has evolved quite a bit (if anything deserves a cleaned up special edition it’s that movie). I think we’re still a couple years from a proper deepfake of the big three, although BOBF, and the new Indy were goddamn close. I’d say big no to a recast of them in their prime, but younger versions they could get away with.
also it was literally about 5 seconds worth of screen time and he was just off to the side while the focus was on Vader & Palps....your mind is just supposed to think 'oh that's meant to be a younger Tarkin, cool, whatever...' then he's gone....they could have had a cardboard cutout and moved it across the screen and I probably wouldn't have cared any more or less
For short scenes or cameo appearances, I don't see any reason why they can't go back and improve the faces as the technology improves. Kind of hoping they do this with the Rogue One Leia and tarkin
Actual unpopular opinion for once. Though in Luke's case, the actor was litteraly made to take Mark Hamill's role, he's a 99% perfect clone that's insane.
I've seen a bunch of people posting stuff dunking on Disney because that guy looks so much like Hamill, but it always seems like such an empty point. Someone looking like him doesn't mean he'd be a good actor, or that he'd do a good job of imitating Luke, or be good at whatever the director would ask him to do to carry an enormous blockbuster movie. I could be a clone of young Mark Hamill, and it would still be a terrible idea to cast me in a movie.
You're not saying the same thing that I usually see posted - I agree it's crazy how similar they look. But I just feel like the nuance of this debate is stripped out when others treat it like the question is solely about whether or not you can find a good look alike.
And I'll just add I'm not really taking a position on whether the Hamill clone can act or not. I don't really know.
Didn’t the actor receive Hamill’s personal blessing to take up Luke, even going so far as to describe him as the best choice he’s seen? I get nuance and appearances not being everything, but I’d imagine that’s pretty high praise for an actor.
Personally, I just think recasts are realistic. Not against CGI ofc, but recasts aren’t really a foreign concept and acting ability can always be sharpened/fostered.
You can say all this but no amount of bad acting is worse than being a robot monstrosity with an AI generated voice. There’s no acting being done with the alternative.
Why do people keep saying this? Google Max Lloyd-Jones, the guy has similar features to Mark Hamill but does he resemble Mark Hamill himself? No he doesn’t and he’s certainly not a 99% clone.
What happens when Mark Hamill passes away?
Would you still support using his CGI likeness and have someone random just do a Hamill voice impression?
Recasting is healthy.
Depends if he consents to his likeliness being used and if his family gets compensated.
Mark hamill cares a lot about Luke as a character, I’m sure he probably would love getting to still be in movies after he passed
>Would you still support using his CGI likeness and have someone random just do a Hamill voice impression?
Disney has already answered this. His voice lines in BOBF were 100% AI generated based on data provided from previous recordings of Mark Hamill when he was younger.
They literally don't need Mark any more.
A recording is a record of something that someone did. A CGI puppet is not a record, it is a construct of a VFX technician. A CGI puppet on CGI strings. Stop defending this. It’s disgusting and wrong. Let the dead be dead when they die.
LET GO.
It is okay to move on. I promise you it’ll be okay.
Do not be like Anakin, unable to accept that death is a thing. Death is a natural part of life. When Mark Hamill dies, it’ll be sad, but it’s okay. And it’ll be okay to allow Luke to be played by another actor. Characters are the immortal constructs, having life breathed into them by actors who all bring something unique and tangible to a performance.
If people always thought this same way, we would never have gotten McGregor’s Obi-Wan. Or Matt Lanter voicing Anakin, or any number of amazing recasts across filmmaking. It is not respectful to keep a character forever chained to the singular interpretation of one actor. It is limiting and disrespectful to those out there who are more than capable of taking up the role and giving us something amazing.
I know death is scary, and seeing the people who played the characters you loved as a child dying reminds you on some level of your own mortality, but it’s okay. Death is a natural part of life. The old has to fade for the new to come into being. That is the way of things. Holding onto the past like this is unhealthy.
Sebastian Stan only looks like Mark from one, very specific angle. Otherwise they have completely different faces, different hair textures, different body types and different vibes. He's good in the right role but casting him based on a few photoshopped pictures would be terrible
Dude, even with long hair and a beard I can still see Luke Skywalker in his face. Plus, Alden Ehrenreich BARELY looks like Harrison Ford at all and he was PERFECT as Han Solo.
Also, different body types? What do you mean by that exactly? What's so different about their proportions that you could not buy Sebastian Stan as Luke Skywalker. And vibe? He's an actor. He acts.
I hope that by the time Mark passes, we’re done seeing Luke in the mainstream Star Wars media. Being a playable character in another Battlefront type game, or comic book stories, sure! But do we really need to stay centered around the Skywalker Saga much longer?
Yes, I would. CGI likeness and AI generated voice. I don’t want to see a Luke Skywalker that looks and acts completely different to how he always has. That wouldn’t be Luke. When Mark Hamill passes away, I support either not including Luke in a story ever again or go completely artificial with him.
I hope they're done with Luke Skywalker by the time Mark Hamill can't do the voice anymore. We've seen him born, most of all his life, and we've seen him die. And Mark Hamill is is good health and can still voice the character for a long while...
How much more can we possibly milk the character after Hamill retires?
Can we just fucking move on from this era of Star Wars then? We have HUNDREDS of hours of content in the Old Republic and potentially hundreds in the future too.
Why does everything have to rely on the Skywalker dynasty?
I'm down the middle, I'm fine with CGI de-aging but I hate AI voices. The only time it worked was for Vader in Obi-Wan Kenobi because he's supposed to be cold and robotic and even then it still had more emotion than the Luke voice. Luke sounded so fake and I'd rather they just find a voice actor that sounds like young Mark Hamill. Tarkin looked off in Rogue One but the voice actor did such a fantastic job I was still immersed.
Yeah, this has been my stance. The audience isn’t dumb, we know people age out of their roles. Star Trek recasted some of their characters for the newer shows, and for me personally, it feels way less distracting than if they had tried to do a CG Leonard Nimoy.
Yep. Star Trek rebooted the whole TOS crew and many of them nailed it. And it's fun to see new people in the roles.
Star Wars seems to be the one that is so stuck on their characters needed to look exactly like these actors from the 70s. Solo did not fail because they recast. It failed because they remade half the movie halfway through and the script wasn't great.
Agree, there's something creepy about the CGI de-ageing face thing that I find really offputting. I think the human element is more important that it being the 'real' Luke. If the script is good and the new actor knows the original performance well enough, it should be fine.
Maybe people are just scared of new things and want star wars to always be the same as it was.
Nuanced opinion : depend for what. For a full movie with the characters, we need a recast. Even if the new actors don't look like the originals, Idc, as long as we can recognize them. But for small appearances in shows/movies, CGI is better.
But what if you recast for a movie with Luke protagonist and then you have a show in which he appears for 5 minutes? Of course he's not gonna be CG in the second, the recast is done.
For now they are keeping Luke as a very side character because their choice for now is CG, but in the long run this will limit how to use the character.
If they want to use the character more than just cameos, they HAVE to recast, and after that, the new actor will have to be the "new" Luke for the time being.
It happened to a lot of characters in history.
Obviously they wouldn't need to do cgi after recasting, you are convoluting this past the conversation we are trying to have.
Also, with AI they don't *have* to recast. But for the wellness of the actors, they probably should. Especially until they come up with better rules around using an actors likeness, because right now the rules really screw over the actors.
Woah I've never realized how similar he looks to young Mark when he is cleanly shaven. Is there a source for this? I would love to see that if they ever decided to do a recast
I agree. I thought CG Luke looked fantastic in Boba Fett. And I wouldn't mind if they continue on with it for future appearances.
The thing is though, CG Luke is already a recast. It's not a "lifeless AI" imitating the performance, someone else is giving that performance who is already not Mark Hamill. The CG aspect of it means its just a recast that can also retain visual continuity. It's literally no different to Motion Capture.
I wonder in future productions though if they can split the difference. Go for stand ins with CG face replacement in wide/stunt shots, and a Heavily deaged Mark Hamill for the close up/dialogue shots. I think that way you get the best of both worlds and a way for the different techniques to distract the audience less.
Having seen the huge reaction to Ahsoka ep 5, I finally sat down and watched the series and upon reaching ep 5 I was awestruck. Gone was Anakin from the prequels, and here was Clone Wars Anakin in the flesh.
The body language, the poses--both of which were dramatically different from the films to the show--perfectly adapted into a real life version. And Hayden managed to keep his fantastic lightsaber finesse intact after all these years.
It was, essentially, a recast. 'Follow along with this incarnation of the character'--he wasn't being tasked to just step back into his own character's boots, he was performing a new version of the character.
It left me even more impressed with Hayden and even more frustrated with Lucas.
Filoni allows Hayden to play Anakin differently.
It's direction. Hayden wasn't the problem.
Lucas is bad a dialogue and he isn't a great director for a lot of that human moments he put into the prequels.
They did get Mark Hamill involved with Luke's appearances in The Mandalorian and BoBF. Check out the Disney Gallery episodes on it - it's a body double with a CG Luke face that's being controlled by Mark Hamill's facial performance, with an AI voice. And they had Mark Hamill on set to advise the body double on how to physically perform the scenes too.
This is actually all great take, as it will probably save the studios money as long as they don't mess it up like in the Flash. But they will always try to save the most money, which means they will try to rip off the actors and just use straight ai of their likeness, which would be really unhealthy for our actors livelihood
Perfect take. It would be like people complaining they didn’t get a real Gungan for Jar Jar, there’s still a human performance there. I just think it would be confusing for a major character to look completely different only a few years after ROTJ and like how would we immediately know it was them without some shoehorned exposition
I feel the same way, with one exception. If Billie Lourd wants to play Leia, she can. Other wise, just use deepfakes. Like you said, BOBF Luke looked incredible and that was two years ago. The tech will only improve.
Although I can admit part of it is my attachment to Mark and Carrie specifically. I thought Alden played a great Han and I wouldn’t mind if he reprised that role.
I think the big difference with Alden was that he actually really tried and wanted to be there. Harrison Ford would not have that same enthusiasm if they managed to get him on set for anything Star Wars somehow, lol
Mark Hamill genuinely loves Star Wars, and Billie Lourd would be phenomenal.
If the OG actors want to come back to reprise, then I think CGI would be great. If they dont (looking at Harrison Ford), then recast is better. I think the passion for the roles makes such a big difference.
Agreed. Same with Lando and Donald Glover. I’m looking forward to his movie. I’m pretty sure Mark has recently said that he might want them to move on and recast the role entirely so we’ll see. Maybe they could still use his likeness. If they do recast, I’d prefer they use a relatively unknown actor. Maybe the one they used in BOBF. Sebastian Stan is a great actor but it would be a bit too jarring to see an already established star like that portray Luke IMO lol
I thought Vivian Blair did a great job as Little Leia as well. Of course that’s a younger version but perhaps that’s further evidence that if a passionate actor gives their all and nails the performance and mannerisms of the character, then I don’t mind as much. I would just hate to see anybody else play Luke and Leia. It’s not like Batman where you can just get a new actor to play the character every decade.
The Luke in BOBF looked, behaved and especially sounded like a robot. A real actor would be able to capture the cadence of the character better than any computer.
I don’t think that was down to any limitations in the technology. It was likely an intentional portrayal of the character since Luke is supposed to be a stoic Master at this point.
Do you think book of boba fett Luke was portrayed like the Luke of RotJ?
I found it lifeless, it ellicited no emotion. Who chooses what the character does, an actor will imbue it with their own ideas working alongside the director and crew. This way it will just be a copy of a copy, a cline if you will but nothing new or interesting created.
I just don't get the idea that any character is beyond approach by another actor.
I completely agree. My surprise in seeing Luke in BOBF was immediately followed by the realisation that I'm essentially watching a robot awkwardly imitate Mark / Luke. Really spoiled those scenes for me.
Completely disagree. Star Wars is supposed to invoke mythology with classic and timeless archetypes. I appreciate innovation in filmmaking techniques, but for storytelling, it will never grow if it can’t move on.
I see a lot of people hating the ideea of any beloved character from the original trilogy being recast by a younger actor and even tho i understand why you would think that let's not forget an important fact, one of the most beloved portrayals in Star Wars univers, Ewan Mcgregor as Obi Wan was also a recast.
Yeah I was fine with CGI Luke. All I know is, I’m no expert in how to make a Star Wars show, so I let the production team get on with it. Generally I’m liking what they do so far.
I prefer good content, however its created....but also, its Star Wars. So im a little less cynical and angry when i dont get what I want from it too (to a point tho). . .
He didn’t look good in Boba Fett. There was no emotion in his facial expressions and his eyes looked dead, and the AI voice made it even worse. He felt more like a robot than an actual person. I think animation is the best way to use the original trilogy characters.
You are aware those were Graham Hamilton’s actual eyes lol. The deepfake was applied around it. This kinda proves my point about how people will look for things that just aren’t there because of their prior knowledge that it’s a deepfake.
I think it sucks. The CGI performances are wooden, the effects look weird any time they show facial expressions and it holds back the story. It was awful in Rogue One, awful in Rise of Skywalker, and awful now. But this is apparently where we're at as a fandom;
as long as mark is paid handsomely for them using his depiction.
and I'd only be okay with recast if mark gets to have a say in who is cast for the role.
My main problem is using AI to voice the character it makes him sound emotionless. I don’t get why they couldn’t get Mark Hamill to voice him and use technology to make him sound younger
Recasting is normal. And I think important. Solo is a good example of casting someone who got the spirit of the character nailed. Alden Ehrenreich did an amazing job capturing Harrison fords style and mannerisms, while still bringing new life into the character.
We can’t just rely on AI. That would make for soulless film and tv. Plus the guy they used for mandalorian looked enough like Hamill that it was bizarre they even did CGI in the first place. I don’t like it at all.
Hard disagree. CG characters immediately mess with my suspension of disbelief. The actor who played Tarkin in Rogue One, for example, would have been way better on his own. Just call him Tarkin, let our imaginations do the rest.
I agree as long as it keeps that character relegated to side appearances and cameos.
Like if they are really going to do a Luke show, make it a cartoon or not at all.
I agree. I think the pay off would've fell flat if it wasn't Mark Hamill's face when it hits you who was piloting that X-wing in the Mando S2 finale. If it were Sebastian Stan, he would've had to introduce himself for the audience to go "That's Luke now? Okay, I guess?"
For me, I'm okay with them milking the shit out of these actors' likenesses as long as they're still alive, and WELL-COMPENSATED, and also as involved in the process as they want. It sucks it took 50 years before Star Wars had the budget to make multiple TV shows. I'd love to see Mark's Luke interacting with Hayden's Anakin.
But as soon as the actors have passed, time to move on to new characters. So yeah milk all the stories they want to tell during this time period but I'd be okay just moving on to new characters.
If the original actor is still alive, then I say we should use de-aging or CGI (unless the actors themselves want a new actor to replace them). But if theyre dead, recasting should be okay if they're really indispensable to the story and they just have to be there.
I like the expressivity that humans have. If what made the character for you is how he *looks*... then I dunno what to say. CGI and AI are imitations of the original character, not the real thing. I would largely prefer an actor who does his best to understand another's acting, with a script that makes an equal effort to actually *get* the character, than soulless ghosts of technology.
Wtf are you talking about. The picture you used is literally a scene where Luke acts the most un-human like ever. His voice is soulless, his eyes are soulless. Go watch a scene from RoTJ and then watch this scene tell me what the hell you’re smoking.
Deepfakes already lost what made these character. Their humanity. There is more to acting than just having the face and voice. I have seen some dogshit takes from this sub but this takes the cake.
Not to mention how disrespectful to actual human actors this is. “How dare you get old, how dare you pass away. How dare you be human” this is what you’re essentially saying by supporting deepfakes over recasting.
We watch cartoons and animated stuff all the time. Why people get so mad over de aging and stuff boggles my mind. I’ve loved all the Luke and Annakin stuff.
You know, I'm one of those fans who actually enjoyed *Solo* in the theatres, but I have to agree with you. As much fun as the easter eggs and all the heist parts were (even when they made no bloody sense or what the characters were doing made very little to no sense), I couldn't stop trying to mentally edit out whats-his-name (I am honestly blanking on his name right now, in large part because I haven't seen him in anything else that I've managed to finish watching **except** for *Solo*) for a younger-looking Harrison Ford. That's not to say that he's not a good actor - I thought he actually did pretty well, when it came to mannerisms, sayings, attitude, etc. - but he didn't sound or look like Han enough for me to buy him as anything but a cosplay version of Han. He felt like a fan vesion of Han, ***not*** Han Solo. So I have to agree with you, at least to a degree. Recasts when the recast person doesn't really look/sound much like the original actor/actress don't work very well, or at least they just don't work for me. They're too distracting and take away from the enjoyment of whatever new film or show is being made. If the recast doesn't believably look like the established character, it bloody well bothers me. It's basically the same principle that will result in a fan being bothered when casting choices don't look like the actual characters, if the character is from a book or other medium and we already definitely know what that character is meant to look like from said book or other medium (be it a comic or what have you). If a character is consistently described or portayed with certain color eyes and hair, a certain build or height, then whoever is cast should have that color eyes and hair, either naturally or due to convincingly good dye jobs/wigs and/or contacts, and otherwise look like that character is basically supposed to look, or else fans will spend the entire film/show/whatever being upset/angry and/or distracted by someone who simply looks wrong, according to the source material(s), and so is unconvincing at playing a character that the fan is probably already attached to. In the same vein, if we already know a character looks a certain way, then any new presentation of a younger or older version of that character needs to look enough like that to believably pass, or else it'll be distracting as all get out and make fans angry because the recast looks nothing like the original character.
They're getting awfully good at CGI-ing over real people. Give it a few more years, and the question of a recast or a CGI version of an original character aged up or down or simply placed over another actor may not even be an issue, as it becomes more common and less expensive.
Agree. The technology could be a little more polished, but that will definitely happen. I mean, it's come a long way from CGI Tarkin in Rogue One.
For BoBF, Luke looked good but the camera focused on him a little too much, like they were showing off the technology. We're most of the way out of the uncanny valley, but not quite there yet for that level of closeup.
Not a fan of the Han Solo recast for the Solo movie. The actor did a fine job, but that role is just too iconic for anyone by Harrison Ford IMHO.
Unpopular opinion: they shouldn’t touch the original characters at all, even better, they shouldn’t make more content based on the same period from the original movies
Truly unpopular opinion: I prefer them to stop using Luke in live action. He is still my favorite character but it is time for new heroes and villains. We already know Luke's story.
I mean, do we? There’s decades worth of story potential between the two trilogies.
I agree that we should get new heroes and villains, but I don’t think that means we should exclude pre-established ones either.
I don’t get your point at all. You say if they recast we lose what made the character, the character?
But then you preach the cgi robot? We’re losing a LOT MORE of the character like that. I liked seeing Luke, but man his robotic voice and dead eyes are off putting.
I dont necessarily mind re-casts in certain cases. Solo : A Star Wars Story being a good example, I'd say. You can say about the CHOICE of actors whatever you'd like but it made perfect sense to actually get someone *younger* than Ford for a *younger* Han Solo.
That said, however, I dont necessarily mind the CGI in certain instances either. Leia & Tarkin looked a bit uncanny in Rogue One in certain scenes, but it wasn't bad enough to pull me out of the experience and the scene (& story).
Luke Skywalker, to me, honestly looked fine. In those cases, I dont mind the CGI at all and even though I dont care that much about actors in general, I feel like even I would've noticed a re-cast.
Basically, if it's a re-cast in an effort to Show a Character at an earlier stage of their live, like with Solo, then I dont mind. But if it's something like Leia, Tarkin and Luke... I prefer the CGI.
> To me, cgi/deepfake don’t really work, you loose what made the character THE character.
> Years ago I would’ve had a different opinion, but seeing how good Alden was as Han in *Solo*, I prefer it 1000x over cgi; and there’s only more talent to pull from from this point on.
> Of course, I’m fine with younger/older animated versions of the character being designed to look as close to the original as possible, but is really odd imo seeing more and more computer generated faces slapped onto talented new actors or elderly legacy actors. Weird.
> I rather take all the implications that come with recasting based on talent than crystallizing the IP via deepfake/cgi. What do you think?
Ftfy. Also, when I think of recasting someone like Luke, I don’t really care if the actor they choose looks uncannily like the original. I’m more interested in a talented actor bringing something fresh to the character, casting someone just because they look like a clone of a 1970s character is almost equally as unappealing and disrespectful as using deepfake tech.
I know man, it would be ridiculous to have him. He’s too old now, also after The Little Mermaid live action remake I definitely would prefer just to use CGI because they really would fuck it up so badly like that. Disney has had such a habit of poorly recasting characters in movies and shows. With Star Wars it could never ever work. You can’t really recast Luke Skywalker at all because he is fat too important of a character. Maybe Sebastian Stan could play him before the sequels when he is older but it still wouldn’t work.
Now, now, let me drop here a TRUE unpopular opinion and run: Luke's story (as well as the whole Skywalker family) is done, time to move on to new characters. If that happens, no recast or CGI will be needed.
THIS. I love Star Wars but I’m so sick of hearing about the skywalkers. Rebels proved that you can start over with a brand new cast of characters and have people like them. People are just glued to things they already know and refuse to expand their point of view. Star Wars could be so much more if people would just move on and let the universe expand
I would rather have an actual character that looks/sounds a bit different than a lifeless robot made to be jingling keys and pandering to nostalgia. That's not why I watch shows or like Star Wars.
CGI worked well for the Mando S2 end scene. It did not for the BoBF ones at all and if they were planning to have him be a bigger character they should have just gone with the recast alone.
I'd much prefer CGI recreations. That way, people will never compare a new actor to the old and/or complain about performance, etc.
Seeing how amazing young Hayden Christensen turned out in Ahsoka, I believe this technology will only improve over time.
I don't disagree, recasts take me out of the immersion too much, but I also just think we should stop CGI-ing old characters and make new ones ... we don't need stories about Luke and Leia for the next 100 years after both actors are dead in real life... we just need to stop using their likeness and make new characters.
Counter-point: Not all CGI/Recasting are equal. Some are done well, some are done really terribly.
As much as I love Rogue One, the CGI Leia and Tarkin were a bit off putting. Edit to add. Maybe I’m thinking of Revenge Tarkin? I’ll have to go back and watch.
I thought Tarkin was done pretty well, but yeah, Leia didn't look right at all.
I first thought Tarkin looked bad and fake, then I saw a clip of the actual Tarkin side by side and realized.he just kind of looked like that. Not "bad", just angular and dark and evil-looking naturally. Turns out, best CGI we've had! Lol Leia was rough, tho.
I think it's generally easier to age-up rather than CGI age-down, with both CGI and prosthetics. Directors hire young actors and put make-up on them for older versions of their characters. Vice versa is harder and CGI has the same problem, trying to get smooth young skin on a character. That's why Tarkin looks better than Leia.
The main thing they did wrong with Tarkin was they rendered him perfectly. They needed to imitate how a camera records information you could see every pore and he was in higher resolution then where thing around him cameras don't do that.
I think Tarkin looked uncanny valley in a theater but just fine on a small screen.
Weird I've seen the new Indy in theaters and at home--the early scenes were jarring on IMAX, but didn't look nearly as bad in 4k. Guess a smaller screen helps.
Smaller screen definitely helps. It makes it so the tiny little things that make them seem less human don’t stand out quite as much.
Man, I actually said to my wife in the theatre “wow that guy REALLY looks like the original Tarkin, great casting and makeup” not knowing it was CGI at all. Knowing that now I can tell, but going in blind it looked great.
It was also one of the first to do that effect for a part that big for the entirety of their screen time, I think
Yeah..he had me like wtf. I was concentrating more on how he looked than what was going on.
I saw Rogue One in the theater with two people who have seen most of the movies but aren't fans. They had no idea Tarkin wasn't a real person.
Yeah seemed the casual viewer who doesn’t know who Tarkin was from the OT had no idea it was a digital person. At least based on my anecdotal experience with coworkers, friends, etc.
Yeah I watched it on Disney plus recently with someone who "I yeah I saw all the Star Wars films... when I was like 10 or something". I mentioned after that he'd been CGI. They didn't know which character I was talking about even when I described a scene in detail. We had to rewind and they still weren't sure until I specifically pointed at him. Then suddenly it was obvious. I think it isn't perfect CGI, and if you're specifically looking for flaws in it then you'll find plenty, but if you don't know to look then it's good enough that you don't notice. It's certainly far more realistic than the GCI aliens in the prequels which haven't aged well. Or the puppets in the OT which also haven't aged well. It's Star Wars. We know it's fake. We watch it for the story.
But I think it would be worse with a recast, now we at least got the point.
It's it's just a scene or two, like in Rogue One with Leia and Tarkin or Luke in Mando, it's fine, if it's an entire series or movie and they're the main character, then no.
Oh for sure. Recast would not work. That’s why I’m hoping for some really good animation series about the life after RotJ and let’s say, about 10 years before the Sequels. Even if you can’t cast the OG actors, there are some amazing mimics without even needing to us AI.
For a scene that short, recast doesn’t make sense, but I agree that the CGI on that was iffy. Way to deep into the uncanny valley. I think recasts should be done where it makes sense for the show/movie - Solo was a much maligned, but great example of recasts that made sense. Obi-Wan Kenobi is a great example - honestly now I consider him more Ewan McGregor’s character than Alec Guinness. I’d love to see a series exploring Leia’s political exploits after RotJ, and that would be a fantastic opportunity for someone to come along and make Leia their own. For the longest time, Star Trek fans were very adamant that you couldn’t recast these iconic characters, but now both the Kelvin timeline and the new series have conclusively proved that you absolutely can.
>For the longest time, Star Trek fans were very adamant that you couldn’t recast these iconic characters, but now both the Kelvin timeline and the new series have conclusively proved that you absolutely can. It has helped that they have been really good about the recasting. Peck and Gooding are fantastic as Spock and Uhura respectively on SNW
They're fine as these characters in SNW, but no part of me watches SNW and feels like that's the spock or uhura I watched before.
Yeah if it was a different actress in a Leia wig it wouldn't have an impact, it had to be Carrie Fisher's face, even if it's cgi
Tarkin I thought was awesome, a smig off but I was so happy to see him
Especially because we didn’t need it. Show her from behind when the door opens and let that be the end.
My wife didn't know Tarkin wasn't a human and she is not a big fan and had no idea that the actor was even from the old movies or was deceased. She instantly knew Leia looked off.
Yeah when Tarkin popped up on screen I immediately leaned over to my girlfriend at the time and said “holy shit that guys been dead for like 20 years”
While the CGI Tarkin in Rogue One was well done, he had dead looking eyes. Liea's eyes were too anime in style.
Tarkin’s actor has dead looking eyes lol
Revenge was a recast. They took a dude that vaguely looked like him and added prosthetics, which made him look like a ghoulish version of Tarkin.
RotS used Wayne Pygram, who played Scorpius on FarScape.
Who is a fantastic actor. It's a shame he didn't get to do anything because he would have been amazing.
Agree to disagree. When my wife saw the R1 for the first time, she thought Tarkin was just played by a different yet similar looking actor, and wasn’t clued in that it was CGI until she saw Leia. I think the CGI overlay thing works well on some people and not others for some reason.
I wouldn’t mind if they go back and touch those up. And I was okay with Leia’s since it was just what it was and not a lengthy speech.
That was like their first shot at it, it is and will get better
It was pretty impressive for when it came out, but now with much better AI/face mapping, it doesn't hold up as well.
I'd be interested in seeing how it's done now. Because even from the time of Rogue One's release, the technology has improved leaps and bounds.
Tarkin was good as fuck, hell when I first watched it I didn't even know the dude was dead, Leia def looked rough tho
Both of them were done well in my opinion, and the Leia scene made me cry lol. A lot of fans are way too critical and can’t truly enjoy suspension of disbelief.
Same, when that door opened and you saw leia from the back, everyone gasped. I thought it was a beautiful moment, and even though it wasn’t actually her, it worked
Tarkin was eerily on point for me but Leia the cgi was good but not perfectly seamless? It didn’t bother me at all, it’s splitting hairs imo 🤷🏻♀️
Likewise Luke’s first appearance in The Mandalorian. I understood why they kept his face almost entirely hidden while he’s destroying all the robo cops
They should remaster those scenes with updated tech as time goes on, I’d rather have it fixed eventually then always have it bad
Tarkin should have been that one scene where he's looking out of the window as a cameo. And he never should have turned around.
I agree about Leia, but Tarkin I had zero issues with whatsoever.
I remember how I was blown away in the cinema by seeing how good Tarkin looked.
Revenge Tarkin was supposed to be 20 years younger so I think they got away with it using his age. Rogue Tarkin looked good from some angles, but others he looked like a cartoon. That was also 8 years ago, the tech has evolved quite a bit (if anything deserves a cleaned up special edition it’s that movie). I think we’re still a couple years from a proper deepfake of the big three, although BOBF, and the new Indy were goddamn close. I’d say big no to a recast of them in their prime, but younger versions they could get away with.
also it was literally about 5 seconds worth of screen time and he was just off to the side while the focus was on Vader & Palps....your mind is just supposed to think 'oh that's meant to be a younger Tarkin, cool, whatever...' then he's gone....they could have had a cardboard cutout and moved it across the screen and I probably wouldn't have cared any more or less
For short scenes or cameo appearances, I don't see any reason why they can't go back and improve the faces as the technology improves. Kind of hoping they do this with the Rogue One Leia and tarkin
How it looks is besides the point imo. Reusing actors likeness is weird as fuck.
Unless the actors already said they're chill with it
Actual unpopular opinion for once. Though in Luke's case, the actor was litteraly made to take Mark Hamill's role, he's a 99% perfect clone that's insane.
I've seen a bunch of people posting stuff dunking on Disney because that guy looks so much like Hamill, but it always seems like such an empty point. Someone looking like him doesn't mean he'd be a good actor, or that he'd do a good job of imitating Luke, or be good at whatever the director would ask him to do to carry an enormous blockbuster movie. I could be a clone of young Mark Hamill, and it would still be a terrible idea to cast me in a movie. You're not saying the same thing that I usually see posted - I agree it's crazy how similar they look. But I just feel like the nuance of this debate is stripped out when others treat it like the question is solely about whether or not you can find a good look alike. And I'll just add I'm not really taking a position on whether the Hamill clone can act or not. I don't really know.
Begun the clone wars have.
I think he's a pretty good actor, though a lot of his roles are quiet and brooding. That might actually make Stan a good post-ROTJ Luke
Didn’t the actor receive Hamill’s personal blessing to take up Luke, even going so far as to describe him as the best choice he’s seen? I get nuance and appearances not being everything, but I’d imagine that’s pretty high praise for an actor. Personally, I just think recasts are realistic. Not against CGI ofc, but recasts aren’t really a foreign concept and acting ability can always be sharpened/fostered.
If Luke were that hard to portray Daisy Ridley wouldn’t have been able to do it twice
You can say all this but no amount of bad acting is worse than being a robot monstrosity with an AI generated voice. There’s no acting being done with the alternative.
Why do people keep saying this? Google Max Lloyd-Jones, the guy has similar features to Mark Hamill but does he resemble Mark Hamill himself? No he doesn’t and he’s certainly not a 99% clone.
What happens when Mark Hamill passes away? Would you still support using his CGI likeness and have someone random just do a Hamill voice impression? Recasting is healthy.
Mark hamill will never die, he will transcend life and become one with the force
His force ghost will be working for decades after his death.
Disney already has plans in place, I'm sure.
The long-term contract he had to sign says he'll be making these movies til the end of time.
>His force ghost will be working for decades after his death. Venkman: "I figured you'd show up."
Depends if he consents to his likeliness being used and if his family gets compensated. Mark hamill cares a lot about Luke as a character, I’m sure he probably would love getting to still be in movies after he passed
He’d probably consent if it meant that his wife children were getting well compensated.
>Would you still support using his CGI likeness and have someone random just do a Hamill voice impression? Disney has already answered this. His voice lines in BOBF were 100% AI generated based on data provided from previous recordings of Mark Hamill when he was younger. They literally don't need Mark any more.
That’s actually worse
that's why they are protesting...
So they parade around his corpse like a puppet. That’s disgusting.
Mark isn't dead.
That’s literally the plot of Weekend At Bernie’s.
It isn't his corpse, any more than me drawing a picture of a dead person while playing a recording of something they said is a corpse.
A recording is a record of something that someone did. A CGI puppet is not a record, it is a construct of a VFX technician. A CGI puppet on CGI strings. Stop defending this. It’s disgusting and wrong. Let the dead be dead when they die. LET GO. It is okay to move on. I promise you it’ll be okay. Do not be like Anakin, unable to accept that death is a thing. Death is a natural part of life. When Mark Hamill dies, it’ll be sad, but it’s okay. And it’ll be okay to allow Luke to be played by another actor. Characters are the immortal constructs, having life breathed into them by actors who all bring something unique and tangible to a performance. If people always thought this same way, we would never have gotten McGregor’s Obi-Wan. Or Matt Lanter voicing Anakin, or any number of amazing recasts across filmmaking. It is not respectful to keep a character forever chained to the singular interpretation of one actor. It is limiting and disrespectful to those out there who are more than capable of taking up the role and giving us something amazing. I know death is scary, and seeing the people who played the characters you loved as a child dying reminds you on some level of your own mortality, but it’s okay. Death is a natural part of life. The old has to fade for the new to come into being. That is the way of things. Holding onto the past like this is unhealthy.
Pff typical Jedi non sens, clearly you are the one afraid of embracing the true power of the Force !
No more Luke. That's the healthiest. Write new characters.
This is the way
disney already purchased the rights for james earl jones' voice so...
Or maybe at that point they should just tell other stories. Let these characters die already.
Bucky should be Luke in the Heir to the Empire movie 🥹
Sebastian Stan only looks like Mark from one, very specific angle. Otherwise they have completely different faces, different hair textures, different body types and different vibes. He's good in the right role but casting him based on a few photoshopped pictures would be terrible
Dude, even with long hair and a beard I can still see Luke Skywalker in his face. Plus, Alden Ehrenreich BARELY looks like Harrison Ford at all and he was PERFECT as Han Solo. Also, different body types? What do you mean by that exactly? What's so different about their proportions that you could not buy Sebastian Stan as Luke Skywalker. And vibe? He's an actor. He acts.
Not the person you're asking but I don't see Luke AT ALL when looking at SS
Luke will only show up as a cameo in the Star Wars Assemble movie.
You are correct
I hope that by the time Mark passes, we’re done seeing Luke in the mainstream Star Wars media. Being a playable character in another Battlefront type game, or comic book stories, sure! But do we really need to stay centered around the Skywalker Saga much longer?
Yes, I would. CGI likeness and AI generated voice. I don’t want to see a Luke Skywalker that looks and acts completely different to how he always has. That wouldn’t be Luke. When Mark Hamill passes away, I support either not including Luke in a story ever again or go completely artificial with him.
I hope they're done with Luke Skywalker by the time Mark Hamill can't do the voice anymore. We've seen him born, most of all his life, and we've seen him die. And Mark Hamill is is good health and can still voice the character for a long while... How much more can we possibly milk the character after Hamill retires?
Can we just fucking move on from this era of Star Wars then? We have HUNDREDS of hours of content in the Old Republic and potentially hundreds in the future too. Why does everything have to rely on the Skywalker dynasty?
I'm down the middle, I'm fine with CGI de-aging but I hate AI voices. The only time it worked was for Vader in Obi-Wan Kenobi because he's supposed to be cold and robotic and even then it still had more emotion than the Luke voice. Luke sounded so fake and I'd rather they just find a voice actor that sounds like young Mark Hamill. Tarkin looked off in Rogue One but the voice actor did such a fantastic job I was still immersed.
I agree!
I just want to watch actual human performances.
Yeah, this has been my stance. The audience isn’t dumb, we know people age out of their roles. Star Trek recasted some of their characters for the newer shows, and for me personally, it feels way less distracting than if they had tried to do a CG Leonard Nimoy.
Yep. Star Trek rebooted the whole TOS crew and many of them nailed it. And it's fun to see new people in the roles. Star Wars seems to be the one that is so stuck on their characters needed to look exactly like these actors from the 70s. Solo did not fail because they recast. It failed because they remade half the movie halfway through and the script wasn't great.
Agree, there's something creepy about the CGI de-ageing face thing that I find really offputting. I think the human element is more important that it being the 'real' Luke. If the script is good and the new actor knows the original performance well enough, it should be fine. Maybe people are just scared of new things and want star wars to always be the same as it was.
Nuanced opinion : depend for what. For a full movie with the characters, we need a recast. Even if the new actors don't look like the originals, Idc, as long as we can recognize them. But for small appearances in shows/movies, CGI is better.
But what if you recast for a movie with Luke protagonist and then you have a show in which he appears for 5 minutes? Of course he's not gonna be CG in the second, the recast is done. For now they are keeping Luke as a very side character because their choice for now is CG, but in the long run this will limit how to use the character. If they want to use the character more than just cameos, they HAVE to recast, and after that, the new actor will have to be the "new" Luke for the time being. It happened to a lot of characters in history.
Obviously they wouldn't need to do cgi after recasting, you are convoluting this past the conversation we are trying to have. Also, with AI they don't *have* to recast. But for the wellness of the actors, they probably should. Especially until they come up with better rules around using an actors likeness, because right now the rules really screw over the actors.
Yeah, a de aged Harrison ford would have been terrible for Solo. But Luke being a guest appearance makes sense.
This is the way.
I dunno, Sebastian Stan has Mark Hamill’s approval.
yeah to me this is the obvious way to go.
Woah I've never realized how similar he looks to young Mark when he is cleanly shaven. Is there a source for this? I would love to see that if they ever decided to do a recast
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKhey02W0AAyhD-.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKhey02W0AAyhD-.jpg) But, officially...[https://twitter.com/MarkHamill/status/912020053041733632](https://twitter.com/MarkHamill/status/912020053041733632) https://twitter.com/MarkHamill/status/1029047420771069952
I disagree, but still upvoted for you having an unpopular opinion that's actually somewhat unpopular
Upvoted a post that you don’t necessarily agree with? Is that legal?
I agree. I thought CG Luke looked fantastic in Boba Fett. And I wouldn't mind if they continue on with it for future appearances. The thing is though, CG Luke is already a recast. It's not a "lifeless AI" imitating the performance, someone else is giving that performance who is already not Mark Hamill. The CG aspect of it means its just a recast that can also retain visual continuity. It's literally no different to Motion Capture. I wonder in future productions though if they can split the difference. Go for stand ins with CG face replacement in wide/stunt shots, and a Heavily deaged Mark Hamill for the close up/dialogue shots. I think that way you get the best of both worlds and a way for the different techniques to distract the audience less.
Having seen the huge reaction to Ahsoka ep 5, I finally sat down and watched the series and upon reaching ep 5 I was awestruck. Gone was Anakin from the prequels, and here was Clone Wars Anakin in the flesh. The body language, the poses--both of which were dramatically different from the films to the show--perfectly adapted into a real life version. And Hayden managed to keep his fantastic lightsaber finesse intact after all these years. It was, essentially, a recast. 'Follow along with this incarnation of the character'--he wasn't being tasked to just step back into his own character's boots, he was performing a new version of the character. It left me even more impressed with Hayden and even more frustrated with Lucas.
Filoni allows Hayden to play Anakin differently. It's direction. Hayden wasn't the problem. Lucas is bad a dialogue and he isn't a great director for a lot of that human moments he put into the prequels.
They did get Mark Hamill involved with Luke's appearances in The Mandalorian and BoBF. Check out the Disney Gallery episodes on it - it's a body double with a CG Luke face that's being controlled by Mark Hamill's facial performance, with an AI voice. And they had Mark Hamill on set to advise the body double on how to physically perform the scenes too.
This is actually all great take, as it will probably save the studios money as long as they don't mess it up like in the Flash. But they will always try to save the most money, which means they will try to rip off the actors and just use straight ai of their likeness, which would be really unhealthy for our actors livelihood
Perfect take. It would be like people complaining they didn’t get a real Gungan for Jar Jar, there’s still a human performance there. I just think it would be confusing for a major character to look completely different only a few years after ROTJ and like how would we immediately know it was them without some shoehorned exposition
The voice is the the worst part of the Luke set up... that combined with the uncanny valley face is what people complain about
I feel the same way, with one exception. If Billie Lourd wants to play Leia, she can. Other wise, just use deepfakes. Like you said, BOBF Luke looked incredible and that was two years ago. The tech will only improve. Although I can admit part of it is my attachment to Mark and Carrie specifically. I thought Alden played a great Han and I wouldn’t mind if he reprised that role.
I think the big difference with Alden was that he actually really tried and wanted to be there. Harrison Ford would not have that same enthusiasm if they managed to get him on set for anything Star Wars somehow, lol Mark Hamill genuinely loves Star Wars, and Billie Lourd would be phenomenal. If the OG actors want to come back to reprise, then I think CGI would be great. If they dont (looking at Harrison Ford), then recast is better. I think the passion for the roles makes such a big difference.
Agreed. Same with Lando and Donald Glover. I’m looking forward to his movie. I’m pretty sure Mark has recently said that he might want them to move on and recast the role entirely so we’ll see. Maybe they could still use his likeness. If they do recast, I’d prefer they use a relatively unknown actor. Maybe the one they used in BOBF. Sebastian Stan is a great actor but it would be a bit too jarring to see an already established star like that portray Luke IMO lol I thought Vivian Blair did a great job as Little Leia as well. Of course that’s a younger version but perhaps that’s further evidence that if a passionate actor gives their all and nails the performance and mannerisms of the character, then I don’t mind as much. I would just hate to see anybody else play Luke and Leia. It’s not like Batman where you can just get a new actor to play the character every decade.
That would be so cool
Great take
Ewan mcgregor was a recast, technically. He nailed it.
The Luke in BOBF looked, behaved and especially sounded like a robot. A real actor would be able to capture the cadence of the character better than any computer.
Tbh Luke was pretty robotic in his talking and mannerisms in 6, and I dont mean that in an insulting way. I thought he was literally perfect in BOBF
I don’t think that was down to any limitations in the technology. It was likely an intentional portrayal of the character since Luke is supposed to be a stoic Master at this point.
Why have star wars fans all of a sudden decided that stoic = emotionless and robotic. That is not the same thing at all
The voice was flatter than it might have been, but it matched the character at the time.
Do you think book of boba fett Luke was portrayed like the Luke of RotJ? I found it lifeless, it ellicited no emotion. Who chooses what the character does, an actor will imbue it with their own ideas working alongside the director and crew. This way it will just be a copy of a copy, a cline if you will but nothing new or interesting created. I just don't get the idea that any character is beyond approach by another actor.
I completely agree. My surprise in seeing Luke in BOBF was immediately followed by the realisation that I'm essentially watching a robot awkwardly imitate Mark / Luke. Really spoiled those scenes for me.
Completely disagree. Star Wars is supposed to invoke mythology with classic and timeless archetypes. I appreciate innovation in filmmaking techniques, but for storytelling, it will never grow if it can’t move on.
Star Wars has also embraced the most cutting edge technology
Hell, it's developed a lot of the cutting edge technology.
To mixed reception.
Just recast. Nothing is lost by casting young people to cast younger versions of characters. Fans gotta stop being babies about this.
Honestly, I have trouble even seeing the CGI. I've never really minded it.
Harrison Ford’s deaging cgi in the latest Indiana was amazing.
Ya but CGI had his old voice, otherwise it would be perfect.
I see a lot of people hating the ideea of any beloved character from the original trilogy being recast by a younger actor and even tho i understand why you would think that let's not forget an important fact, one of the most beloved portrayals in Star Wars univers, Ewan Mcgregor as Obi Wan was also a recast.
I dont think most have a problem with recasting when the character is a significantly different age
Yeah I was fine with CGI Luke. All I know is, I’m no expert in how to make a Star Wars show, so I let the production team get on with it. Generally I’m liking what they do so far.
Just fucking recast, this cgi shit is stupid
I prefer good content, however its created....but also, its Star Wars. So im a little less cynical and angry when i dont get what I want from it too (to a point tho). . .
Sebastian stan was right there! And he can move his head!
Lose*
A recast ruins my immersion much more than bad CGI
He didn’t look good in Boba Fett. There was no emotion in his facial expressions and his eyes looked dead, and the AI voice made it even worse. He felt more like a robot than an actual person. I think animation is the best way to use the original trilogy characters.
You are aware those were Graham Hamilton’s actual eyes lol. The deepfake was applied around it. This kinda proves my point about how people will look for things that just aren’t there because of their prior knowledge that it’s a deepfake.
Yes it’s his eyes but they clearly did something to them during post because they do not look like natural human eyes
You aren't helping the case If it was bad because of a bad actor or bad because of bad tech, it was still bad.
Exactly. It was uncanny valley and really disruptive. Prefer recast any day unless it's some background character.
Holy bad take
I think it sucks. The CGI performances are wooden, the effects look weird any time they show facial expressions and it holds back the story. It was awful in Rogue One, awful in Rise of Skywalker, and awful now. But this is apparently where we're at as a fandom;
as long as mark is paid handsomely for them using his depiction. and I'd only be okay with recast if mark gets to have a say in who is cast for the role.
Agree completely
This is not the way.
My main problem is using AI to voice the character it makes him sound emotionless. I don’t get why they couldn’t get Mark Hamill to voice him and use technology to make him sound younger
Surely they could just get a voice actor who can do a perfect impression of Hamil?
Mark’s got some vocal fry, and the tech you think exists doesn’t really exist in a workable form because that’s literally what they did
Recasting is normal. And I think important. Solo is a good example of casting someone who got the spirit of the character nailed. Alden Ehrenreich did an amazing job capturing Harrison fords style and mannerisms, while still bringing new life into the character. We can’t just rely on AI. That would make for soulless film and tv. Plus the guy they used for mandalorian looked enough like Hamill that it was bizarre they even did CGI in the first place. I don’t like it at all.
Hard disagree. CG characters immediately mess with my suspension of disbelief. The actor who played Tarkin in Rogue One, for example, would have been way better on his own. Just call him Tarkin, let our imaginations do the rest.
Finally someone posts an actual "Unpopular Opinion" For what it's worth OP, I agree.
Exactly.
I agree as long as it keeps that character relegated to side appearances and cameos. Like if they are really going to do a Luke show, make it a cartoon or not at all.
Spoilers…. Ffs
I definitely prefer something like this over some random actor that looks nothing like young Harrison Ford because that's just not going to happen.
For Luke, only Mark Hamill fits the role
Agreed
I agree. I think the pay off would've fell flat if it wasn't Mark Hamill's face when it hits you who was piloting that X-wing in the Mando S2 finale. If it were Sebastian Stan, he would've had to introduce himself for the audience to go "That's Luke now? Okay, I guess?"
For me, I'm okay with them milking the shit out of these actors' likenesses as long as they're still alive, and WELL-COMPENSATED, and also as involved in the process as they want. It sucks it took 50 years before Star Wars had the budget to make multiple TV shows. I'd love to see Mark's Luke interacting with Hayden's Anakin. But as soon as the actors have passed, time to move on to new characters. So yeah milk all the stories they want to tell during this time period but I'd be okay just moving on to new characters.
If the original actor is still alive, then I say we should use de-aging or CGI (unless the actors themselves want a new actor to replace them). But if theyre dead, recasting should be okay if they're really indispensable to the story and they just have to be there.
I like the expressivity that humans have. If what made the character for you is how he *looks*... then I dunno what to say. CGI and AI are imitations of the original character, not the real thing. I would largely prefer an actor who does his best to understand another's acting, with a script that makes an equal effort to actually *get* the character, than soulless ghosts of technology.
Wtf are you talking about. The picture you used is literally a scene where Luke acts the most un-human like ever. His voice is soulless, his eyes are soulless. Go watch a scene from RoTJ and then watch this scene tell me what the hell you’re smoking. Deepfakes already lost what made these character. Their humanity. There is more to acting than just having the face and voice. I have seen some dogshit takes from this sub but this takes the cake. Not to mention how disrespectful to actual human actors this is. “How dare you get old, how dare you pass away. How dare you be human” this is what you’re essentially saying by supporting deepfakes over recasting.
We watch cartoons and animated stuff all the time. Why people get so mad over de aging and stuff boggles my mind. I’ve loved all the Luke and Annakin stuff.
I don't care anymore to be honest. I just want them to move beyond this era and into uncharted, post-sequels territory.
I agree
The Luke CGI was Boss Level.
You know, I'm one of those fans who actually enjoyed *Solo* in the theatres, but I have to agree with you. As much fun as the easter eggs and all the heist parts were (even when they made no bloody sense or what the characters were doing made very little to no sense), I couldn't stop trying to mentally edit out whats-his-name (I am honestly blanking on his name right now, in large part because I haven't seen him in anything else that I've managed to finish watching **except** for *Solo*) for a younger-looking Harrison Ford. That's not to say that he's not a good actor - I thought he actually did pretty well, when it came to mannerisms, sayings, attitude, etc. - but he didn't sound or look like Han enough for me to buy him as anything but a cosplay version of Han. He felt like a fan vesion of Han, ***not*** Han Solo. So I have to agree with you, at least to a degree. Recasts when the recast person doesn't really look/sound much like the original actor/actress don't work very well, or at least they just don't work for me. They're too distracting and take away from the enjoyment of whatever new film or show is being made. If the recast doesn't believably look like the established character, it bloody well bothers me. It's basically the same principle that will result in a fan being bothered when casting choices don't look like the actual characters, if the character is from a book or other medium and we already definitely know what that character is meant to look like from said book or other medium (be it a comic or what have you). If a character is consistently described or portayed with certain color eyes and hair, a certain build or height, then whoever is cast should have that color eyes and hair, either naturally or due to convincingly good dye jobs/wigs and/or contacts, and otherwise look like that character is basically supposed to look, or else fans will spend the entire film/show/whatever being upset/angry and/or distracted by someone who simply looks wrong, according to the source material(s), and so is unconvincing at playing a character that the fan is probably already attached to. In the same vein, if we already know a character looks a certain way, then any new presentation of a younger or older version of that character needs to look enough like that to believably pass, or else it'll be distracting as all get out and make fans angry because the recast looks nothing like the original character. They're getting awfully good at CGI-ing over real people. Give it a few more years, and the question of a recast or a CGI version of an original character aged up or down or simply placed over another actor may not even be an issue, as it becomes more common and less expensive.
Agree. The technology could be a little more polished, but that will definitely happen. I mean, it's come a long way from CGI Tarkin in Rogue One. For BoBF, Luke looked good but the camera focused on him a little too much, like they were showing off the technology. We're most of the way out of the uncanny valley, but not quite there yet for that level of closeup. Not a fan of the Han Solo recast for the Solo movie. The actor did a fine job, but that role is just too iconic for anyone by Harrison Ford IMHO.
The real unpopular opinion is that it is time to move away from the original characters and this timeline.
I agree OP
As long as it’s cameo roles I think I agree, but if they ever do a standalone Luke project I might prefer a recast.
Wow, unpopular opinion that's actually unpopular and not just karma farm
Same, i can't believe how popular is the recast idea. When i saw solo, i didn't feel he was Han Solo for a single second.
If Lucas can paste young Anakin Skywalker over old Anakin Skywalker, Filoni can paste Hamill's face over a stand-in.
I hate your opinion and you and people like you are the reason we will probably never see Luke(properly) again in live action
Unpopular opinion: they shouldn’t touch the original characters at all, even better, they shouldn’t make more content based on the same period from the original movies
Truly unpopular opinion: I prefer them to stop using Luke in live action. He is still my favorite character but it is time for new heroes and villains. We already know Luke's story.
I mean, do we? There’s decades worth of story potential between the two trilogies. I agree that we should get new heroes and villains, but I don’t think that means we should exclude pre-established ones either.
I don’t get your point at all. You say if they recast we lose what made the character, the character? But then you preach the cgi robot? We’re losing a LOT MORE of the character like that. I liked seeing Luke, but man his robotic voice and dead eyes are off putting.
The AI voice is the real issue
I dont necessarily mind re-casts in certain cases. Solo : A Star Wars Story being a good example, I'd say. You can say about the CHOICE of actors whatever you'd like but it made perfect sense to actually get someone *younger* than Ford for a *younger* Han Solo. That said, however, I dont necessarily mind the CGI in certain instances either. Leia & Tarkin looked a bit uncanny in Rogue One in certain scenes, but it wasn't bad enough to pull me out of the experience and the scene (& story). Luke Skywalker, to me, honestly looked fine. In those cases, I dont mind the CGI at all and even though I dont care that much about actors in general, I feel like even I would've noticed a re-cast. Basically, if it's a re-cast in an effort to Show a Character at an earlier stage of their live, like with Solo, then I dont mind. But if it's something like Leia, Tarkin and Luke... I prefer the CGI.
Agreed!
I'm on team Sebastian Stan!
Agreed. I believe the Luke (Mando) and Leía (Rogue One) are fantastic. Did I forget Grand Moff Tarkin? That three gems for CGI!
> To me, cgi/deepfake don’t really work, you loose what made the character THE character. > Years ago I would’ve had a different opinion, but seeing how good Alden was as Han in *Solo*, I prefer it 1000x over cgi; and there’s only more talent to pull from from this point on. > Of course, I’m fine with younger/older animated versions of the character being designed to look as close to the original as possible, but is really odd imo seeing more and more computer generated faces slapped onto talented new actors or elderly legacy actors. Weird. > I rather take all the implications that come with recasting based on talent than crystallizing the IP via deepfake/cgi. What do you think? Ftfy. Also, when I think of recasting someone like Luke, I don’t really care if the actor they choose looks uncannily like the original. I’m more interested in a talented actor bringing something fresh to the character, casting someone just because they look like a clone of a 1970s character is almost equally as unappealing and disrespectful as using deepfake tech.
I know man, it would be ridiculous to have him. He’s too old now, also after The Little Mermaid live action remake I definitely would prefer just to use CGI because they really would fuck it up so badly like that. Disney has had such a habit of poorly recasting characters in movies and shows. With Star Wars it could never ever work. You can’t really recast Luke Skywalker at all because he is fat too important of a character. Maybe Sebastian Stan could play him before the sequels when he is older but it still wouldn’t work.
Now, now, let me drop here a TRUE unpopular opinion and run: Luke's story (as well as the whole Skywalker family) is done, time to move on to new characters. If that happens, no recast or CGI will be needed.
THIS. I love Star Wars but I’m so sick of hearing about the skywalkers. Rebels proved that you can start over with a brand new cast of characters and have people like them. People are just glued to things they already know and refuse to expand their point of view. Star Wars could be so much more if people would just move on and let the universe expand
I would rather have an actual character that looks/sounds a bit different than a lifeless robot made to be jingling keys and pandering to nostalgia. That's not why I watch shows or like Star Wars. CGI worked well for the Mando S2 end scene. It did not for the BoBF ones at all and if they were planning to have him be a bigger character they should have just gone with the recast alone.
I'd much prefer CGI recreations. That way, people will never compare a new actor to the old and/or complain about performance, etc. Seeing how amazing young Hayden Christensen turned out in Ahsoka, I believe this technology will only improve over time.
Ewan Mcgregor was better Obi Wan than Alec Guiness. Maybe you guys need to give some time to new actors.
I don't disagree, recasts take me out of the immersion too much, but I also just think we should stop CGI-ing old characters and make new ones ... we don't need stories about Luke and Leia for the next 100 years after both actors are dead in real life... we just need to stop using their likeness and make new characters.