If some geek can seamlessly replace Jack Nicholson from The Shining with Jim Carey - https://youtu.be/-ZRUZzZPGto - then why couldn’t they have deep faked Nicholson’s face onto the actor playing Jack Torrance In this?
Better still, deep fake him onto an actor who can mimic Nicholson’s voice.
I don't know if they can use his face for new material in a sequel without paying for it. If you could do that then every famous actor is going to lose their value. So the bill was probably far too high for a cameo.
shareI don’t know about the legality of deep faking in movies but you make a very plausible argument.
shareCrispin Glover sued after they used footage of him in BTTF2 without his permission or compensation. Ever since laws have changed and now you totally would have to pay Nicholson to use his likeness.
Of course, I wouldn't have minded if even Jack at this age showed up. I thought Henry Thomas was fine though I think some of the angles he was shot at were far from flattering.
If that’s the case then it would have been a price worth paying.
shareIt would have been a lot better to hire Jack Nicholson and Shelley DuVall and de-age them. They've gotten quite good at de-aging old actors (Michael Douglas in the Ant-Man movies is one of a few examples), and it beats a "deep fake" because you have the voice and acting chops from the real actor, as well as the real face and body structure under all that age to work with.
Unfortunately, Nicholson seems to be retired, may not be in good health, and commands a big paycheck, and DuVall has been retired for 18 years and reportedly has a mental illness.
As for simply using a different actor, Christian Slater would have been better than the guy they used, since he's always come across as a poor man's Jack Nicholson.
All you need is a good Jack impersonator and then deep fake Jack’s face onto him, as per the Jim Carey example I shared above.
shareJack himself is obviously better at being Jack than any impersonator.
shareYes but he’s too old and mentally ill to play his forty-years younger self, and de-ageing is not as good as deep fakery in capturing an actor’s younger appearance. Compare De Niro’s younger face in The Irishman, which had the ‘fatness’ and broader skull shape of his 80 year-old self (and he moved like an old man) to the accuracy of Jim Carey in the link I provided.
shareI haven't seen The Irishman, but the de-aging of Michael Douglas in the Ant-Man movies was good, particularly in the sequel. The de-aging of Kurt Russell in one of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies was pretty good too. De-aging and "deep fakes" are both done digitally, so there's no reason that a "deep fake" could be inherently better than de-aging; it comes down to the skill of the person or team doing the work and how much time they want to spend on it. There are plenty of bad "deep fakes" out there as well.
De-aging has the advantage of the actor's real voice, acting ability, and real facial movements and mannerisms.
No because it’s much harder to adjust the old-man physicality present in de-ageing AND compensate for the broader skull and extra weight of an actor’s older self. With a deep fake one simply maps the desired face onto an impersonator who can mimic the movement and voice of, say, Jack.
Again, the Jim Carey example I posted shows how much better deep fakes are, and it would certainly have been the only way to go in the example we’re discussing in Doctor Sleep now that Jack is very old and mentally ill.
"No because it’s much harder to adjust the old-man physicality present in de-ageing AND compensate for the broader skull and extra weight of an actor’s older self."
An adult's skull doesn't get broader with age. Again, it all comes down the skill and time invested. There are good and bad examples of both de-aging and deep fakes. Another example of good de-aging is in the most recent Terminator movie:
https://youtu.be/DgbfYISdYAA
The de-aging for Hamilton and Furlong is just about perfect. Arnold's de-aging could have used more work.
Also, I've yet to hear a Jack Nicholson impression that sounds like Jack Nicholson rather than an impression.
"Again, the Jim Carey example I posted shows how much better deep fakes are"
No, it doesn't. That's not even the best "deep fake" I've seen. The face looks like about 75% Jim Carrey and 25% Jack Nicholson, which is typical with deep fakes (i.e., they end up looking like a blend of the original person and the replacement person).
"and it would certainly have been the only way to go in the example we’re discussing in Doctor Sleep now that Jack is very old and mentally ill."
Who said that Jack is mentally ill? In any case, I've already pointed out that...
"Unfortunately, Nicholson seems to be retired, may not be in good health, and commands a big paycheck"
... so they likely couldn't have gotten him for the role even if they wanted to, but regardless of that, it still would have been the best choice if they could have gotten him. Also, as others have pointed out, you can't simply use someone's likeness in your movie without authorization (and in the case of a star like Nicholson, that authorization certainly wouldn't be free or cheap, if granted at all), so there's no guarantee they could have gotten authorization to deep fake Nicholson's face onto someone else either.
No the best option was deep fakes because they look much more convincing, and Jack is too old, fat and mentally ill to play half his age or even sound the same. What you’re suggesting is ludicrous but keep digging...
shareYour entire post is mere gainsaying; consider it dismissed out of hand. And since you have no further arguments, your tacit concession is noted.
shareYou still haven’t offered a better solution than deep faking, only worse options. After it was clearly explained to you why they’re not as effective as deep fakes, with examples, you kept pushing your bad ideas.
Come back when you have a better idea than deep fakes.
"You still haven’t offered a better solution than deep faking, only worse options."
False. I've already explained why de-aging the real actor is better than a deep fake applied to an impersonator (even though no explanation should be necessary, because it should be obvious).
Since your post still consists of nothing but mere gainsaying, your tacit concession remains noted.
Yeah you were wrong about that because Nicholson is too old, fat, different sounding and mentally ill to portray his younger self, remember? Plus deep fakes look more convincing than de-ageing as shown by my Jim Carey example, remember?
share"Yeah you were wrong about that because Nicholson is too old, fat, different sounding and mentally ill to portray his younger self, remember?"
You never established any of those things, so consider your mere assertions dismissed out of hand.
"Plus deep fakes look more convincing than de-ageing as shown by my Jim Carey example, remember?"
Not even close. They look like a blend of the original actor and the replacement actor, "remember"?
Since you still have no arguments (mere gainsaying and assertions don't count), your tacit concession remains noted.
My descriptions about Nicholson and the Carey deepfake are observably true, your denying of them is absurd and unique to you.
shareYour mere assertions are dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
shareI hope you can find someone who agrees with your reality-denying beliefs. Good luck.
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
shareGiven that you pulled said ‘non sequitur’ and ‘tacit concession’ out of your ass (the same place which emitted your insane assertions throughout this thread) I won’t be too bothered.
shareYour non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
shareYou’re repeating yourself, bot, so here’s what we’ll do - if anyone thinks that anything MaximRecoil has said in this ‘discussion’ is remotely accurate, valid or insightful then please mention it and I’ll be happy to respond.
Needless to say, this invitation doesn’t extend to you, MaximRecoil, and any reply from you to this post, or any others of mine on this thread, will be considered an apology for your rank stupidity, regardless of what text you write.
Let’s hope, for your sake, that someone can find something remotely valid in your... contributions.
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
shareSo now we have a direct comparison PROVING that deep fakes look better than de-ageing: https://youtu.be/dHSTWepkp_M
shareYou just unwittingly proved my point. That's a so-called "deep fake" of Robert De Niro's face that's been applied to... Robert De Niro's face. In other words, it's de-aging. They simply improved on the crappy de-aging job that the movie makers did in the first place. The exact same process could have been done for Jack Nicholson in Doctor Sleep. I've already said that the quality of de-aging depends on skill and time invested, and the video you linked to illustrates that perfectly.
Your original example was Jim Carrey's face applied to Jack Nicholson's face, which is a true example of a "deep fake" (definition of a "deep fake" from the video you linked to: "Deepfakes are synthetic media in which a person in an existing image or video is replaced with someone else's likeness leveraging powerful techniques from machine learning and artificial intelligence"), and like I've already said, it looks like a blend of the two different faces, which is a problem with all deep fakes that I've seen.
It seems that the only de-aging that you're familiar with is the crappy De Niro one from The Irishman, even though I've already mentioned, and even linked to, much better ones. Let's see someone improve on the de-aging of Linda Hamilton in the most recent Terminator movie, for example. They can't improve on that, because that de-aging job makes her look ~exactly like she did in the mid 1990s.
No, I trashed your bullshit point that de-ageing is better than deepfakery, which you’re now trying to walk back because you’ve been humiliated by that video.
Deepfake technology is superior whether you’re slapping it ontop of an older version of the same actor, or a different actor.
It was the better method in the Irishman, and it would have been the better method in Dr Sleep, slapping a young Jack face on a Jack impersonator.
You know it, but let’s see how your bloated ego tries to cope with you being proven spectacularly wrong. Take it away...
"No, I trashed your bullshit point that de-ageing is better than deepfakery, which you’re now trying to walk back because you’ve been humiliated by that video."
No, moron, you linked to an example of de-aging, thus proving my point that it's better to start with the real actor, because you get the real voice, the real acting ability, and the real facial structure as a basis.
Remember when you said...?
"All you need is a good Jack impersonator and then deep fake Jack’s face onto him, as per the Jim Carey example I shared above."
Well guess what, simpleton? The video you just linked to didn't "deep fake" Robert De Niro's face onto a Robert De Niro impersonator. In other words, like a dumbass, you linked to a video that supports my argument, not yours.
It doesn't matter whether traditional CGI or so-called "deep fake" software (or a combination of both) is used; if you're putting younger Person A's face onto older Person A's face, it falls under the category of de-aging, obviously. Again, the definition of deepfake is:
Deepfakes (a portmanteau of "deep learning" and "fake"[1]) are synthetic media[2] in which a person in an existing image or video is replaced with someone else's likeness.
In most interviews with ILM they note how Scorsese didn't want DeNiro and Pesci to look exactly as they were at the time, but more like they were wearing prosthetic enhancements (this is why Pesci's nose doesn't look like his nose). A weird approach, it's like Scorsese said "we'll never be able to fool them because the audience knows their faces too well", so he decided to just have ILM create new faces that look a lot like the actors, and focus more on making it look like the character is actually there than making it look exactly as the actors were at that age (and properly translating the performance the actor gave).
Yeah nice try, the fact that the deepfake is slapped over a de-aged De Niro is utterly irrelevant.
Whether it’s used over an older version of the target actor, or an impersonator doesn’t matter - it’s much better at credibly de-ageing an actor than the much less effective, much more expensive, more laborious and significantly slower process of de-ageing that you keep making excuses for even after a direct video comparison demolishes your pathetic argument.
Your argument rivals your stupid as fuck suggestion that Jack Nicholson, old, fat and mentally ill, would be a better solution than deepfaking his face onto a Jack impersonator.
At this point your only value is to provide a demonstration of total cognitive dissonance. Watching you run in circles in total denial here is akin to watching a creationist freak out when faced with a fossil. Keep going, what else you got for us..?
"Yeah nice try, the fact that the deepfake is slapped over a de-aged De Niro is utterly irrelevant."
No, it isn't irrelevant, dipshit. The entire point of contention is whether it's better to use Jack Nicholson or an impersonator. The video you linked to supports de-aging the real Jack Nicholson (because it shows a de-aged Robert De Nero, not Robert De Nero's face slapped onto an impersonator), not slapping his face onto an impersonator, obviously.
In other words, dumbass, like I've told you twice now, the video you linked to supports my argument, not yours.
"Whether it’s used over an older version of the target actor, or an impersonator doesn’t matter - it’s much better at credibly de-ageing an actor than the much less effective, much more expensive, more laborious and significantly slower process of de-ageing"
You're an utter buffoon. It's better at de-aging than de-aging? LMAO. It is de-aging, clodpate. "De-aging" isn't a specific process. It covers anything that can be used to make an actor look younger, from lighting to traditional make-up to various computer-generated techniques, which can include the use of "deepfake" software.
By the way, you don't seem to realize that deepfake software can only be effectively used when the camera has an unobstructed view of the actor's face. If something comes between the actor's face and the camera, such as if the actor is eating a sandwich, or scratches his nose, or someone walks in front of him, etc., deepfake software screws up by putting a very noticeable blur around whatever came between the actor's face and the camera.
"Your argument rivals your stupid as fuck suggestion"
Comical Irony Alert: Part II
"that Jack Nicholson, old, fat and mentally ill, would be a better solution than deepfaking his face onto a Jack impersonator."
You haven't established that he's mentally ill, airhead, so consider that mere assertion dismissed out of hand. And yes, de-aging the real Jack Nicholson is obviously better than deepfaking his face onto an impersonator, as the Robert De Nero example you linked to illustrates perfectly. Thanks for unwittingly providing that link by the way.
"At this point your only value is to provide a demonstration of total cognitive dissonance. Watching you run in circles in total denial here is akin to watching a creationist freak out when faced with a fossil. Keep going, what else you got for us..?"
Your non sequitur is dismissed, mooncalf, as is your laughable attempt at redefining the term "cognitive dissonance." Also:
Comical Irony Alert: Part III
It’s your obnoxiousness combined with your head-crushing stupidity that makes this desperate attempt of yours to dig yourself out of this black hole of total humiliation that makes you so cringe to watch. Well, it’s your reputation not mine, let’s do this...
The video you linked to supports de-aging the real Jack Nicholson
"De-aging" isn't a specific process. It covers anything that can be used to make an actor look younger, from lighting to traditional make-up to various computer-generated techniques, which can include the use of "deepfake" software.
By the way, you don't seem to realize that deepfake software can only be effectively used when the camera has an unobstructed view of the actor's face.
de-aging the real Jack Nicholson is obviously better than deepfaking his face onto an impersonator, as the Robert De Nero example you linked to illustrates perfectly.
"It’s your obnoxiousness combined with your head-crushing stupidity"
Comical Irony Alert: Part IV from the registered idiot.
"that makes this desperate attempt of yours to dig yourself out of this black hole of total humiliation that makes you so cringe to watch. Well, it’s your reputation not mine, let’s do this..."
Your non sequitur is dismissed. Also:
Comical Irony Alert: Part V
"No it doesn’t you fucking helmet"
I've already established otherwise, dipshit, so consider your mere gainsaying dismissed out of hand.
"the video both proves that deepfaking is vastly better than de-ageing in all scenarios"
LOL at you. Again, ninny, the video you linked to is an example of de-aging, not an example of a deepfake. So what you're effectively saying here is, "the video both proves that de-aging is vastly better than de-ageing in all scenarios" (dumbass). Also, the de-aging of Robert De Niro in that video isn't better than the de-aging of Linda Hamilton in Terminator: Dark Fate (2019), and they didn't use deepfake software on her, neither in whole nor in part.
"and it would be the ONLY solution in Dr Sleep"
That's easily proven false simply by watching the movie. They didn't use your "solution," which means there's more than one solution, obviously.
"Yeah nice walk-back."
Your laughable attempt to redefine the term "walk-back" is dismissed.
"De-ageing was the specific technology and technique used in The Irishman"
De-aging isn't a specific technology or technique, moron, like I've already told you. Any method used to make a person look younger is considered de-aging, obviously, and that includes the use of deepfake software.
"deepfaking is the specific technology used in the superior comparison"
The comparison is just additional de-aging (on top of the intentionally bad de-aging that ILM already did).
"and the Jim Carey Jack Torrance example."
That was an actual deepfake, nimrod, unlike the Robert De Niro example, which was de-aging. Do you need the definition of "deepfake" to be posted again, simpleton?
"You’re just now trying to blur the definition so that you look like less of a tool for championing the vastly inferior technology."
No, numbnuts, I'm using actual definitions. The point of contention here isn't about specific techniques/technology (though you're far too stupid to realize that); it's about whether it's better to de-age the original actor or to apply the original actor's likeness to an impersonator. The Robert De Niro video is an example of de-aging the original actor, therefore you unwittingly supported my position when you posted a link to it (LOL at you, again).
"This could easily be rectified with additional digital effects work, and you know it."
LOL! So now you're onboard with using various techniques, which is a contradiction of your laughable "deepfake is the ONLY solution" mantra.
"firstly because Jack is too old, fat and mentally ill"
Your mere assertion is dismissed (again).
"you’d need to compare old, fat De Niro being deepfaked with an appropriately aged De Niro impersonator being deepfaked to assert that one was better than the other, and you don’t have such an example."
First, the de-aged Robert De Niro in the video you linked to looks like a younger Robert De Niro, so there's no significant room for improvement there. You're certainly not going to improve it by deepfaking De Niro's face onto an impersonator, which will end up looking like a blend of the impersonator and De Niro. Second, an impersonator can't sound more like Robert De Niro than Robert De Niro himself, obviously. Third, yes, I do have such an example, from the same guy who did the video you linked to, no less:
https://youtu.be/Wm3squcz7Aw?t=19
THE RECASTING WORKS WELL WITH EVERYONE BUT THE NICHOLSON CHARACTER...I REALLY LIKED THAT THEY TOOK THAT APPROACH...THE NICHOLSON CHARACTER AS PLAYED BY HENRY THOMAS OF E.T. FAME...THAT DIDNT WORK AS WELL...THE BAR SCENE WAS AWKWARD AND DISTRACTING...THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE SOME CGI WIZARDRY ON THAT ONE CHARACTER.
shareCorrect, specifically they should have used deep fake technology.
shareHave you checked to see if Nicholson would have allowed it? I don't really care for deep fakes that much. Yes we have the technology, but in cases like bringing James Dean back from the dead I think it's just in poor taste. Why even bother with actors? Say the someone is a great actor but some producer decides that they aren't good looking enough so they use someone else's face. Where is too far? Sure Henry Thomas didn't look like Nicholson, but I didn't really care.
shareI did care, using Henry Thomas didn’t work, they should have used deep fakes, I don’t know about the legality but deep fakes of stars like Pacino, Schwarzenegger and Carey are on YouTube with presumably no permission from them.
shareI know you don't care, but I'm sure studios do.
I would be downright pissed if someone used my likeness without my permission and you can bet your butt I'd sue.
The legality is a separate issue. If it was impossible for those reasons then fair enough (unlikely because deep fakes of living celebs already exist) but creatively it was the only way to go.
There would be a whole raft of legal issues -- with the appropriate big money involved -- to licensing the image of Jack Nicholson is the obvious answer. For all we know, they may even have approached him about it and were turned down.
That said, yes, I expect that we will eventually see the common use of this technology in movies, assuming it isn't outlawed for broader reasons. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that law makers and Hollywood studios are already involved in discussions about it.
I seem to remember some years ago that there were proposals being considered to deal with the use of the images of dead actors... how their estates would be compensated, etc. I think it gained traction when they used James Dean? Humphrey Bogart? in some modern movie using re-mixed footage.
Deepfake tech will likely fall under the same laws or similar.
The problem is we don't know where that geek got all the images of Jim Carrey for the program to do its thing. Jack Nicholson could easily say yes, but I doubt it's as easy as scooping all his images from The Shining. They'd probably have to get them from multiple sources, plus getting permission to use the program.
shareIt’d be very easy to create a 3D Jack based on his extensive film and photographic records, as they did with Carey.
It’s possible that there could be some legal loopholes to using deep fakes but my point is simply that it would be the best creative solution to recreating Shining Jack.
Here's an example of the Jim Carrey stockpile they used to create the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4whz6UdXxhc&t=91s
If you're just making a youtube video, you have a lot more freedom to gather those images and use them under fair use. To put them in a studio film, however, it would be a licensing nightmare.
I'm not even sure if they could've done it for Cavill's mustache in Justice League. Perhaps.
It’s possible that there could be some legal loopholes to using deep fakes but my point is simply that it would be the best creative solution to recreating Shining Jack.
shareNow we have a direct comparison proving that deep fakes look better than de-ageing: https://youtu.be/dHSTWepkp_M
share