First Star Wars standalone movie: Rogue One


I’d be inclined to agree. I also think, however, that sometimes limitations can impose creativity. Take this, for example. If they went with Guy Henry with some makeup, perhaps the limitations of that would force careful usage, shot composition, and lighting. Done well it could enhance the appearances.

It could have worked, or it could have failed.

I didn’t start watching them until my wife and I started dating in 2010, but I seem to recall that change was taken rather well? The beard certainly helps mask the differences, but the replacement was good enough that fans seem to accept it pretty well.


I’m going to 100% side with the idea that if they had just put another actor in the role, at best you’d get some blowhards talking about Cushing’s masterful performance in the original, and no one could equal it, or whatever. Nothing of any substance because most people would do the normal thing and accept the difference from a 1977 movie.

CG recreations of live actors interacting with normal people is still a hot topic, so instead of talking about how Guy Henry nailed Tarkin (or didn’t) we get endless blogs, hand-wringing, and discussion about the tech, how uncanny it was or wasn’t, the ethical issues, and (with unfortunate timing) what it all means for Carrie Fisher’s role in future movies.


Which, to be clear, were all issues that were going to come up at some point sooner rather than later. It was inevitable that such a usage of CG recreations would exist, so the ethical considerations that had been lurking just in the background now have their opening. Which is the curious thing about this, where does this all shake out?


I am following just fine thank you. I was and always have been talking about both situations and separating one from the other is pointless in this discussion. Anyway, what we got here is failure to communicate. And since you feel that we are not on the same wavelength, Ill just move on.


And I’m not thinking the Harry Potter fans are somehow less picky than the Star Wars fans. His replacement was received just fine. I think doing the thing in this case wouldn’t have caused much of a stir at all. Like @Telefrog said, some memories, nostalgia and some sadness and then we move on. The CGI for those two in this movie I think was a misstep… but it didn’t destroy the movie or anything. I just think they could have done better by making a different choice.


This is absolutely true, but I’ll bet you dollars to donuts the “jumping on” would have been lesser if they’d cast a new actor. Especially a favorite among us dorks like Charles Dance.

Gollum Tarkin was absolutely the worst choice they could have made and, to my mind, indicative of how out of touch this movie was with the Star Wars universe.



Charles Dances has the look, the force of personality, but his voice is far too resonant to work for me. That would have bugged me for sure, as Cushing had a much higher pitch in his voice, a sharpness that is diametrically opposed to the heft that Dance has.

Not to say I wouldn’t have adjusted, but that would have been pretty jarring for me personally. Guy Henry has a voice that would fit far better though (and of the possible actors, would probably have been my pick for that reason).

None of this is to say that I disagree with your position! I’m inclined to agree that it would have been a far less upsetting move, one I doubt we are still talking about except in passing. But I do also think this was a discussion that was going to happen sooner rather than later, and I see no two ways around that. Whether it be Tarkin today, or some other beloved actor 5 years from now, someone was going to cross that Rubicon.

Now we just need to figure out where we stand, and if this becomes a common thing, or something that is roundly rejected in the future.


Well now that we have lost Carrie Fisher, how many people want to see CGI filling in all the gaps for the future movies or should we hope they find another way to do it? The future is like… tomorrow.


Disney did come out not too long ago and said they would not be doing a CGI Leia going forward.


At the risk of being snipped at again, the point is the future of whether or not CGI should or will be used for sudden deaths is upon us now. And if it was so wildly acceptable and worked well, maybe they wouldn’t need to say they aren’t doing it.


But it’s not new. We’ve gone through this same song and dance with Laurence Olivier in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Humphrey Bogart in Coke ads, and Audrey Hepburn in Galaxy Chocolate commercials.

Heck, one of the landmark Hollywood cases for this is Crispin Glover suing and winning his case against the studio for using a body double and makeup in Back to the Future 2 without his permission or originally getting paid.


Which is great news. I like to think they know how terrible the Tarkin and Leia looked, and they’re done with that nonsense. As for Carrie Fisher, I presume she was cast in Episode VIII, so either they finished shooting or they’re going to cut her character?



They finished all of her scenes for VIII, but not IX. This is apparently an issue for Disney/Lucasfilm as the part she would’ve had in IX would’ve been substantial according to some of the scuttlebutt.


Great, so now we’ve been spoiled that she doesn’t die in the next movie!


I remember those chocolate ads with fake Audrey Hepburn. They were simultaneously fascinating and a bit creepy. At first I was wondering what it was that I found so familiar about the young woman on the bus, then I thought woah, they’re getting pretty good at this.


If nothing else, this movie got me to bite on Criterion’s 25-film Zatoichi boxset.


The good news for spoiler-phobes is that according to the same scuttlebutt, because the intended part in IX was so big and central to the resolution, her death is forcing them to rethink the whole story. One of the solutions mentioned would be to rewrite her XIII part so she gets written out of the story (death, leaves, whatever) then move her core stuff to another character.


Not having a CGI Leia in the next movies is certainly 99,99% down to the fact that it would simply create negative reactions/feedback (and not based on the technical quality of said CGI Leia, it would just spark discussions about the ethical side of things that Disney definitely wouldn’t want).


Plus…that was a character that could not be replaced by another character. Dumbledore was pivotal. And with death in a situation like that the audience is going to understand that the director really had no option.


Why is this a factor with Carrie Fisher but not Peter Cushing? The “too soon” effect? That she’s a pretty young girl and he’s just a creepy old man? That her character is more central to the Star Wars universe?

You’re probably right, of course, but I see no difference between CGing Tarkin and CGing Leia.