Original Desmond

You take the GOTG Vol 2 scene with a younger Kurt Russell in the flashback, it was pretty realistic. It's been done in some other movies too (young Robert Downey in Iron man etc)

now imagine a Big Trouble in Little China 2 sequel with a CGI reverse aged Kurt Russell so he is 30 years younger for the entire movie, is that taking things too far ?

Imagine Commando 2 with a younger Arnie or a Charlies Angels movie with young Jaclyn Smith, Farrah Fawcett, Cheryl Ladd, Tanya Roberts and Kate Jackson

OldBoy

The young Michael Douglas in Ant-Man, I think was the best, but not sure a whole movie can sustain. Tarkin in Rogue One wasn’t great and extended period of on-screen time.

Probably ask mod to movie to movie forum...

The Valeyard

The younger Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy looked pretty horrible. Granted, that was 7 years ago.

Sonic

Taking things far in what sense? Who is getting hurt? Personally most people would love their idol actors to be in their prime where they had the most shine.

In the future it wouldn't surprise me if some actors that are no longer with us, will appear in movies once again thanks to technology that will make them exist digitally down to every little pore.

GoldenJCJ

A new Indiana Jones movie with a young (looking) Harrison Ford would be awesome...or horrible, I don’t know which.

Double_Oh_7

Tarkin was a different situation. It was superimposing one actors face over another, not de-aging an actors face.

Why So Blu?

YEah, you can do it, but they will only do it on properties that are economically viable. Big Trouble in Little China was a bomb at the box office. Don't expect a sequel to it in this life.

Brack

Most John Carpenter movies have been bombs. He doesn’t like sequels much anyway

A remake with Dwayne Johnson, of an almost forgotten cult favorite of mine, sounds very likely or at least has way better a chance.

Brack

I don’t know how I feel about it. In one way it’s neat, but sparingly. I don’t want our actors to turn into essentially live-action Simpsons characters in that they don’t age or whatever. Still would prefer this to botched plastic surgery.

Hazel Motes

I'm pretty bummed over Scorsese using it for The Irishman. It degrades the vitality of the image. Everything on screen is becoming so artificial. Dunkirk didn't use any cgi. That fact should be astounding, but its not, because unless you know that, you don't believe it. And even if you do know that, you're eyes don't believe it because they've been lied to so many times. When something amazing happens on screen you can't even trust your eyes anymore.

Until you're a master of trickery like David Fincher, I think its a bad idea.

I'd take recasting over cgi Reverse aging any day of the week.

Obi-Wanma

It works well in small doses, but I think the tech is too expensive and time consuming to do it well for an entire film.

inri222

Jay G.

This isn't true. Nolan tried to do as much as possible practically, but there's still some visual effects in the film.

Interview with visual effects director of photography Mark H Weingartner:

Here's a VFX company that worked on the film:
http://www.dneg.com/dneg_vfx/dunkirk/

Interview with Christopher Nolan:
https://www.businessinsider.in/Chris...w/59546064.cms
So there's CGI in Dunkirk, but as little as possible.

Nick Danger

The mind boggles! Will leading men be able to extend their careers into their 70s? Will leading ladies be able to extend their careers into their 30s?

Jay G.

I don't know about "too far," but it'd be insanely expensive currently. There's a reason most of the reverse aging done so far are for short scenes. And the results are still highly variable.

For Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, in the director's commentary, Gunn mentions that they used a mix of makeup, a young lookalike, and vfx to reverse age Kurt Russell at the beginning. I believe he said makeup did the bulk of the work. Kurt Russel talks about the makeup in this video (around the 1:50 mark):

Meanwhile, for Blade Runner 2049...


So, at the moment, it's a mix of techniques, depending on the actor, the movie, effects house, etc.

But there's also a question of goals. Sometimes it makes sense to use a different actor, sometimes it make sense to reverse age one. In the Marvel Universe, there have been two actors that play Howard Stark, John Slattery for old Howard, and Dominic Cooper for young Howard. John Slattery played it first in Iron Man 2, but for Captain America: The First Avenger, they decided to go with a younger actor instead of reverse aging John Slattery. But they keep using John Slattery for the older Howard

So then you end up with the opening of Ant Man, with a reverse aged Michael Douglas playing across John Slattery as old Howard and an aged up Hayley Atwell (via makeup), who has also played across Dominic Cooper as young Howard:

You can also see this happening in the Star Wars films, where they reverse age Carrie Fisher for the end shot of Rouge One, but went with new, younger actors for the Han Solo film.


If a studio were to do a new Big Trouble in Little China film today, they'd likely produce it with an eye for a franchise. In that case, it'd likely make more sense to go with a new, younger actor who can appear in the bulk of the scenes without vfx, and then go on to play the character in further films.

Original Desmond

guys what is expensive today, can be done on a home PC tomorrow

My question is more a moral one than a technical or economic one. I used Big trouble 2 just as a possible example, not as an definite suggestion

Definitely a huge difference between an actor playing the part and being CGIed younger versus CGIing a dead actor.

RichC2

I don't think it's immoral, I just don't like how it looks for the most part so far.

Jay G.

No matter how cheap it gets, it's still always going to be more expensive than just having a younger actor play the role.

Also, there's always going to be enhancements and improvements that keep it on the cutting edge. Nowadays, Pixar could likely render the original Toy Story in real-time, but Coco still took months to render.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/17/8...th-anniversary
https://www.quora.com/How-much-faste...t-took-in-1995

Morally, If it's de-aging the original actor based on a new performance by them, and obviously with their consent, I'm fine with it. Actors use makeup and other things to stay looking young anyway. One would probably need to ask why it's so essential the actor looks young though. For example, what's necessarily wrong with a Big Trouble in Little China 2 with an older Jack Burton?

Recreating a deceased actor to continue a role is a little more tricky. The actor can't give consent, and while their estate can, I'm not sure it'd always be in the industry's or audience's best interest.

Going to the extreme, studios could have a "stable" of immortal big-name stars, and just cycle through a parade of nameless actors for mo-cap and such. It wouldn't allow for new stars to arrive, to provide new takes on old characters, or even new characters.

Think of the James Bond series where they're all played by Sean Connery, perpetually 30. Or a Doctor Who where William Hartnell's interpretation is still The Doctor. Things could get stale.

Abob Teff

Still don’t want it ... you guys are never going to convince me Harrison Ford can give us one more good Indiana Jones performance. I don’t care if you can make him look 30 if he still moves and sounds 70.

You guys mention “bringing back” dead stars ... you need to think bigger. How long before a studio creates its own star who was never alive in the first place? Or have we already seen that with CGI?

Sonic

I think the problem also mostly lies in the technology we have today where we can't make them look humanly fluid enough. Think Fast & Furious (Paul Walker) There is always that little "autistic" stare the CGI have where they are puzzled and takes away from the realism.

Hopefully one day technology will reach a pinnacle where you can't tell the difference anymore.

Jay G.

That is a factor, you can only de-age the image, not the physicality. I think there may be ways to tweak the voice though.

Well, that's the plot of S1mone, but that was an actual actress.

If the CGI character is human, it's better to model them off of the actor portraying them to better map the mo-cap. That's why they get lookalikes if it's someone deceased.

Michael Corvin

He managed to give us one more good Han Solo performance so Indy isn't out of the question. Ford/Indy wasn't the problem with Crystal Skull.

I'm not down for the de-aging for a full film though. Maybe a flashback or two.

majorjoe23

I’m pretty sure they didn’t reverse age Carrie Fisher for Rogue One, they just mapped her young face onto a stand in’s body ala Tarkin and spliced in a word from her dialog in A New Hope.

rw2516

The estate's permission would definitely be required. Also compensation. Wouldn't surprise me if Peter Cushing's estate got paid more for his likeness for Rogue One than he ever got paid for a film while alive.

Imagine studios making deals with estates for exclusives rights to a deceased actor's likeness.

RichC2

That movie The Congress touched on this subject... I uh think? Looking back, I don't think I ever fully understood that one.