@TheLurker And this draws us into Rogue One (2016) and the computer Grand Moff Tarkin.
Which looks fine to me, until he moves.
@TheLurker Roger that. Then it’s animation NOT live action.
The facial movements are definitely off.
I’m not sure how much was prosthetics. In RotS, this guy played Tarkin’s body double; no CGI or animation was involved.
Sorry, this guy:
He’s actually a fairly good match for Cushing’s facial structure.
He’s George Lucas’ chiropractor!
That whole thing made zero sense. Why not just have him shave the mustache and wear a fake one for the other movie? It seems to me that they picked the dumbest and most difficult way to solve the issue that they could.
“Wait, he has to be clean-shaven as Superman! But he needs to have a mustache for his other movie. What could we possibly do about that?”
“Have him wear a fake mustache?”
“No! That’s ridiculous! We’ll have him keep the mustache and then after filming all of Superman’s scenes, we’ll just digitally alter his face to get rid of the mustache.”
“Won’t that look a little weird?”
“Who looks at a person’s upper lip? No one will notice!”
“Wouldn’t it be easier just to slap on a fake mustache?”
“Easier, schmeasier. This is the modern age! Computers solve everything!”
I’m willing to bet Henry Cavill was contractually obligated to grow the mustache for M:I — Fallout. Which meant, contractually, he could not shave it off until filming had finished. And then Whedon needed last minute reshoots for his version of Justice League, and you’re in Barney.
Probably true, though you’d think it’d have been easier for WB to say to Paramount “here’s a fake moustache that looks exactly like the one he had, and a makeup person at our expense”.
Then again, you don’t want a Samurai Cop situation, so Paramount might’ve been all, “Your tough luck, pals. Get your act together and you won’t need so many reshoots!”
There had to be a serious beef between Warner Bros and Paramount in regards to Cavill’s mustache. Or both studios are run by a pack of oblivious idiots.
That would’ve worked if this was a Star Wars video game. We have yet to break past the uncanny valley in terms of live-action movies. Luke Skywalker in The Book of Boba Fett was proof of that in both visual and audio.
Why they recreated Luke’s voice digitally I don’t know. It sounded ridiculous.
It sounds so unnatural. It’s like a robot doing a cold reading of the script. If they couldn’t fix Hamill’s voice, why not hire a voice actor who could impersonate Luke Skywalker?
I’ve seen clips of people re-tweaking the special FX for the first Star Wars trilogy. It’s much easier with after-effect programs these days.
Who says it can’t be both?
Quite simply, Hamill’s voice has aged along with the actor. It doesn’t sound the way it did almost forty years ago in 1983.
Now that’s a more interesting question. If one wants to tell stories set in the period between the second and third Skywalker trilogies and incorporate the Jedi in any fashion, one will be hard-pressed to avoid involving Luke. What would snap you faster out of a sense of willing suspension of disbelief:
- Presenting a beloved character as he would have been over thirty years ago using what is — for today — cutting-edge computer effects technology, or
- Having that beloved character recast?
I think it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. And note that I’m not necessarily saying either option is a good one.
I understand that, but I think getting a voice-over actor to imitate him would have been a much better choice. He sounded like a phone message system.