StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If they can convincingly digitize dead actors, how long before we get Alec Guinness back? Or young CG versions of Han, Luke and Leia?

A brief glimpse of Tarkin is one thing, especially if it's at a bit of a distance or at an odd angle like from behind that doesn't actually show a whole lot of his face.

An entirely photo-realistic rendering of a well known character... is quite another matter. We already know young Han is going to be done by a different actor; there's a lot of buzz that Carrie Fisher's daughter is going to play young Leia in this movie. The only thing necessary would be to add a few digital tweaks to their appearance if necessary, for example Harrison Ford's chin scar, but a lot of those could also be achieved with makeup.

It wouldn't be hard, for example, to just grey up Ewan McGregor's hair and digitally remove a couple of moles, and suddenly he'd be a pretty good resemblance for a older-but-not-so-wrinkled Alec Guinness say ten years before ANH.

Yup, in another absolutely gorgeous shot *.*

16 days...

After seeing what they did in Ant-Man with a young Hank Pym, I'm more open to digital 'resurrections' of characers/actors. It's a different kettle of fish to recreate a face from scratch rather than de-age an actor I suppose, but it can't be far off if they don't quite nail it in Rogue One.

Irregardless, I wonder how many loosers and morans will continue to misspell the word "rogue" after seeing this movie.

Galvatron wrote:Irregardless, I wonder how many loosers and morans will continue to misspell the word "rogue" after seeing this movie.

Why?

Crazedwraith wrote:

Galvatron wrote:Irregardless, I wonder how many loosers and morans will continue to misspell the word "rogue" after seeing this movie.

Why?

Well, for all intensive purposes, it'll be a household word.

Rogue 9 wrote:Of course he had; Rogue One is set mere days before A New Hope, and I'll be shocked if it doesn't end with the transmission of the Death Star plans to the Tantive IV.

Something I was discussing with a friend the other day. It was always my assumption that Leia was at Tattooine to pick up Obi-Wan, since she says as much in her recording (my mission to bring you to Alderaan has failed...). That I get. Bail knows Obi-Wan is there and they cook up some diplomatic run to go pick him up. What was being discussed though was why did the Tantive IV get beamed those plans?

I know that FTL is fast in SW, so I can buy that they got the plans and the Empire was on them before they even really knew what they had- otherwise they'd have booked it back to Alderaan immediately. My friend seemed to think that they had the plans and carried on to Tattooine instead of trying to get them to safety (and of course almost lost them).

Is there any other canon that explains why Leia appears to be carrying the DS1 plans but is also stopping off to pick up a single man? Is Kenobi that valuable he's worth the risk? Or are we expecting Rogue 1 to end with them positioned such that the Tantive IV is the only viable destination to beam (what must be a considerable amount of data) to before capture/destruction?

I'm betting the Rogue One team will have to right their way through hordes of stormtroopers and walkers to reach a transmitter so they can send the plans to the Tantive IV. They'll probably get picked off one by one and Jyn Erso will die of her wounds just as she presses the send button.

This is Seven Samurai as a prequel to Hidden Fortress. There will be survivors from the team. If nothing else, Jyn Erso has to live long enough to abandon her daughter on Jakku....

Maybe you shouldn't post that fan theory like it was fact?

Kojiro wrote: Is there any other canon that explains why Leia appears to be carrying the DS1 plans but is also stopping off to pick up a single man? Is Kenobi that valuable he's worth the risk? Or are we expecting Rogue 1 to end with them positioned such that the Tantive IV is the only viable destination to beam (what must be a considerable amount of data) to before capture/destruction?

I've never heard of a canon answer. However I think her assumption was that such a glaringly stupid weak spot as the thermal vent would not exist, but that an internal weakness was much more plausible, would almost have to exist, and that as the last known Jedi Kenobi would be the only hope for deeply infiltrating the station to sabotage it. Which he then goes and does in the movie for a different reason.

Rogue 1 could end all kinds of different ways; it's said to be the first rebel victory so total loss of the assault team doesn't feel right for that. But then I also don't expect a movie that was apparently seriously reworked in production to really care about implications like that, or frankly anything else. Some kind of direct beam to Tantive IV, which gets picked up by nearby Imperial forces ect... would be the simple way to go, but it doesn't have to be that way. She might have only been a relay. Also Hollywood tends to prefer endings which are not abrupt, so some of this depends on what the supporting characters do and what stories they need wrapped up.

The more important question is why they didn't just broadcast it into the clear so that there was no way for the Empire to recover it. There is zero downside to doing so. It would have been one thing if the Empire didn't know the plans were compromised and thus keeping the fact that they were compromised secret makes sense as it allows for an element of surprise. Maybe that was the case, the Rebels didn't knoq they were found out until the Devastator attacked and at that point they were jammed and they couldn't. That could justify a smart, targeted and limited initial transmission of the plans. We all know the writers will be too stupid come up with a good reason like that though. And if the Empire doesn't know off that bat, Rogue One one can't have its stupid action/splosions ending.

Even if the above was the case though, that doesn't explain why Leia didn't upload the plans to StarTube after their escape from the DS.

As it is now its not unlikely that even when they got the plans to Yavin they remained there only. Good think they pulled it off, or else nobody else would have had a chance to find another weakness to exploit.

The Empire owns "Startube" or the HoloNet, if you will. And if you think Youtube can be a pain in the ass for censoring things.. well

Fine, Rebit then. Or R2Chan. Okay I'm done now.

So what does the galactic underground economy use for communications? Presumably if Jabba the Hutt needs to put a price on someone's head, he transmits the information out somehow. Is there a galactic pirate radio network, or is the Empire unable to stop them using the proper galactic internet?

Yes to the first, Sort of to the second.

If they know they have been compromised, I have no problem believing the Empire could shut down the proper channels in that sector or region relatively quickly. They also might somewhat know what they are trying to block and thus sniff for it on the holonet. But as you said it appears plenty of parties, including the Rebels themselves, have somewhat functional if not perfect communications outside of the Empire's control. More to the point, they DID get them to the Tanitive IV so the question is already answered. They can transmit, they just chose to do so stupidly.

Encrypted transmissions? If super-surveillance is too much, then hyperspace people or droid couriers and have them manually deliver papers? Or have Imperial comms people under their payroll? Or heck, just because technically it is "Empire owned" doesn't mean the state-owned holocommunications company is clean. And just because cartels don't own the telecom networks doesn't mean they never use phones. Gangstas still have social media presences. Heck, they can even communicate in social media using codes - like in Mr. Robot.

If Jabba posts a selfie with a purple Twi'lek with the holotag #coxpah then that means he's telling his homies to do a spice run but if he poses a selfie with his rancor with the holotag #rancorpoodoo then that means the Empire's doing a crackdown. Etc.

If you have your own transmitter that's powerful enough to connect to someone on the other side of the galaxy, without having the message "routed" through whatever holo-servers that are Empire-owned, then despite the consequences of shitty hologram quality, and despite the risks of interception, if properly encrypted, then you can pull it off?

Unregistered holotransmitters and holorelays throughout the galaxy, bouncing around the outer-rim. Slicers hacking into legit holo-relays and holo-servers and putting exploits and shit for embedded messages...

As for the Death Star plans... maybe the storage device or the plans themselves had some protocol where improper decryption would cause it to evaporate. If R2 sent it to a computer without the proper codes, or uploaded it into the wider Holo-Net, then the plans would not be decrypted and would just fizzle. Maybe technicians in Yavin had the necessary gear to decrypt it?

Sea Skimmer wrote:Rogue 1 could end all kinds of different ways; it's said to be the first rebel victory so total loss of the assault team doesn't feel right for that.

Opening crawl indicated that the space battle was a victory...

Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.

...but it didn't say the rebel spies survived. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Galvatron wrote:If they can convincingly digitize dead actors, how long before we get Alec Guinness back? Or young CG versions of Han, Luke and Leia?

To answer this question directly, I would say easily within a decade at the rate the technology is improving. We could do it now in theory, but it wouldn't be totally convincing and would still look weird in places.

I wonder what the legal requirements are to use a deceased actor's likeness in a film. Do they pay royalties to their survivng family/estate perhaps?

Another point this raises is: once you have a full scan of an actor's likeness stored and a theoretical stock of convincing impressionists to hire...do you even need the physical presence of an actor anymore? Say in 20 years time we can create 100% realistic doubles of actors via CGI. Why would studios fork out millions to pay for the actor, when they could just use this (presumably) much cheaper method?

Chimaera wrote:Another point this raises is: once you have a full scan of an actor's likeness stored and a theoretical stock of convincing impressionists to hire...do you even need the physical presence of an actor anymore? Say in 20 years time we can create 100% realistic doubles of actors via CGI. Why would studios fork out millions to pay for the actor, when they could just use this (presumably) much cheaper method?

I believe it was Back to the Future 2 that used the likeness of Crispin Glover without his consent, and were smacked down in a lawsuit hard. (And that was just with a double, some good makeup, and some footage from the first BttF.) So I don't see studios using actors' mugs without their permission, but some (or perhaps a majority) of actors will probably happily license out their faces to movies, with stipulations on what their doppelgangers are allowed to do, to protect their brand. Of course there will always be the "hardcore" actors who will want to have full control of every emotion, twitch, glance, etc..., and will never allow themselves to be digitally doubled.

EDIT--
Apparently the Crispin Glover case was settled, but this article says that Screen Actors Guild rules have been changed to protect the use of actors' likenesses.

DesertFly wrote: Of course there will always be the "hardcore" actors who will want to have full control of every emotion, twitch, glance, etc..., and will never allow themselves to be digitally doubled.

I imagine there will be...I can't help but think once the method approaches standard practice, those actors will gradually find themselves rather short of work

That's shit though - will that amount of CG really be cheaper than just having a meat-person act? Sure, maybe all the freaking overpriced Adam Sandlers and Johnny Depps can instead get more reasonable pays, especially if they have to compete with cheapified animations that just require voice acting (or maybe not, when voice-simulations will fix that).

But that's really crap. I mean, I don't want the craft and medium to die just because what amounts to cartoons are now super-detailed. Can't we enjoy all the mediums that can co-exist and compete and cross-pollinate and intersect without killing either off?

My god this is why we enjoy fiction and value these arts. But I guess for some types of consumer, sure, if all the Isaac Asimovs, William Gibsons and Ursula Le Guins get replaced with algorithm-based writer-programs spewing out shitty lowest-common-denominator shit-fiction, like milwanking mil-scifi, then they'll be pretty happy too. I mean, it's pretty much why people read Baen books anyway, rite? Replace bleep-bloop algorithm bots with frakking scifi version of Tom Clancy-wannabes and those Tomy Clancy's [INSERT TACTICOOL TITLE HERE] written by McGenerico Dudeman necroliteratures and that's pretty much it...