Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Entertainment Technology

James Dean, Who Died In 1955, Will Return To the Big Screen Via CGI (hollywoodreporter.com) 93

Posted by BeauHD from the back-from-the-dead dept.
Two VFX companies are bringing James Dean back to the big screen to star in the Vietnam era action-drama Finding Jack. Dean passed away in a 1955 car crash at the age of 24. From The Hollywood Reporter: Directed by Anton Ernst and Tati Golykh, the project comes from the filmmakers' own recently launched production house Magic City Films, which obtained the rights to use Dean's image from his family. Canadian VFX banner Imagine Engine will be working alongside South African VFX company MOI Worldwide to re-create what the filmmakers describe as "a realistic version of James Dean." Adapted by Maria Sova from Gareth Crocker's novel, Finding Jack is based on the existence and abandonment of more than 10,000 military dogs at the end of the Vietnam War. Dean will play a character called Rogan, considered a secondary lead role.

While Finding Jack will be live action, The Hollywood Reporter understands that Dean's performance will be constructed via "full body" CGI using actual footage and photos. Another actor will voice him. Preproduction on Finding Jack starts Nov. 17, with a goal for a worldwide release on Veterans Day 2020. Magic City Films is handling the foreign sales. "We searched high and low for the perfect character to portray the role of Rogan, which has some extreme complex character arcs, and after months of research, we decided on James Dean," said Ernst, who also produces with Golykh for Magic City Films alongside Donald A. Barton of Artistry Media Group. "We feel very honored that his family supports us and will take every precaution to ensure that his legacy as one of the most epic film stars to date is kept firmly intact. The family views this as his fourth movie, a movie he never got to make. We do not intend to let his fans down."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

James Dean, Who Died In 1955, Will Return To the Big Screen Via CGI More

James Dean, Who Died In 1955, Will Return To the Big Screen Via CGI

Comments Filter:

  • Why? (Score:3)

    by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @06:46PM (#59388816)
    You're telling me you can't find an actor good enough for your special baby? Methinks your movie is gonna fail, nothing can survive that much hubris.

  • Why? (Score:3)

    by spudnic ( 32107 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @06:46PM (#59388818)

    Why? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should without some compelling reason.

    • How about it just being cool or fun? Or do you nutters want to ruin it for everyone?

      • I don't think the pundits concerned about robots taking over the world have taken sufficient account of the enthusiasm of people to be replaced because it would be "cool or fun".

        But, I suppose, a world in which the family of a man who died 65 years ago sell his likeness for profit is not one that can endure.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • In Gladiator the actor playing Proximo died during filming so they used a body double and digitally overlaid the actor's face. Supposedly whenever the scene is dark or he is in shadow it's the double.

        And of course, after Paul Walker died Fast and Furius did a combination of using recycled/cut footage and using his brother as a double. So it does happen, but both of these cases are either avoiding recasting and refilming or allowing for a send off/tribute for a main character.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tsqr ( 808554 )

        I think actually that this should be a really big deal. Giving an acting job to a DEAD GUY takes jobs away from LIVE GUYS; the Screen Actors Guild SHOULD step in and forbid members from taking part in this atrocity. Or is it a travesty? In any case, this is just wrong. Pushing what is basically deep-fake tech to insert a dead guy into a LIVE ACTION film is like taking a giant shit on his memory, (he's dead, let him rest,) while insulting all of acting.

        You're a little late. Gene Kellys danced with a cartoon mouse in 1945''s Anchors Away. And of course, that sort of thing has been done many times over the years. And then there's the ending of Rogue One.

      • Pushing what is basically deep-fake tech to insert a dead guy into a LIVE ACTION film is like taking a giant shit on his memory

        That ship sailed in 1995 when Amblin made the first live-action film with a dead main character brought to life with CGI. The character's name was Casper McFadden.

    • With this technology the Hot starlets need never age out of their careers. We can go back to drooling over the perpetually late teen Natalie Portman naked and covered in grits for the rest of eternity now. Long after her bones have crumbled to dust, young basement dwelling geeks can celebrate her winning her 20,465th Oscar for Best Actress. New actresses need not apply, Hollywood has all the digital actresses and actors they need.

      Of course the Best actor role will rotate between Brad Pitt, George Clooney
  • They should do that with historical characters. For example, there exist numerous busts of Julius Caesar - it would be awesome to use them to get the real Julius Caesar on the screen. Well, more real than any actor.

    • They should do that with historical characters. For example, there exist numerous busts of Julius Caesar - it would be awesome to use them to get the real Julius Caesar on the screen.

      I'd ratchet it up one notch . . . create a Jesus Christ and a Prophet Muhammad, and then stage a UFC match.

      The prize? World religious domination and superiority!

      It would stop all conflicts between Christians and Muslims, since peace would be determined by a USF match.

      • Re:Cool (Score:5, Funny)

        by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @07:34PM (#59388948) Journal

        It's be a boring match.
        Muhammad wins by default as Jesus is a no-show. Being imaginary and all that.

        Personally, I'd rather watch a match between Joe Smith and L. Ron Hubbard.
        Now THAT would be a bloody affair, with eye-gouging, ball-biting, limbs and blood all over the place...

        Though Hubbard would probably win.
        He knows that Joe's weaknesses are prison windows and bullets, [wikipedia.org] while Joe never even heard of IRS and psychiatry, which were Hubbard's kryptonite.

        • It's be a boring match.
          Muhammad wins by default as Jesus is a no-show. Being imaginary and all that.

          Um, what?

          • On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt [amazon.com] . There is maybe a 2 out of 3 chance that Jesus is pure fiction. That means there is maybe a 1 out of 3 chance that the myths, legends, and fables were based on a real human.

            • There was probably a real person. One point is that story of the Roman census (which never happened) and travel to Bethlehem for Jesus' birth seems to have been tacked on, purely because the prophecy held that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Why not just say he was *from* Bethlehem in the first place? The reason is that he was clearly *already* referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth", so they had to add the contrived story to account for that. This makes it very likely that the name "Jesus of Nazareth" w

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jeremyp ( 130771 )

              I'd be wary of that book. Carrier pretends to use Bayesian statistics but I think his premises and his methodology are suspect. Read some of the negative reviews on Amazon to get a sense of why his arguments might not be as sound as they seem.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Kjella ( 173770 )

              On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt . There is maybe a 2 out of 3 chance that Jesus is pure fiction. That means there is maybe a 1 out of 3 chance that the myths, legends, and fables were based on a real human.

              The real question you should be asking is that if you're trying to start a religion, why wouldn't you start with a person that already has a cult following? Starting from scratch to conjure a legend out of nothing seems like a lot more work than starting out with a charismatic leader with a host of parlor tricks. In fact doesn't the disciples sound exactly like the inner circle of a cult glorifying their leader's death? He wasn't caught, he was betrayed. He wasn't killed, he was resurrected. He didn't stay

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jeremyp ( 130771 )

          And Muhammed was real?

          • Re:Cool (Score:4, Informative)

            by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Thursday November 07, 2019 @06:43AM (#59390102)

            And Muhammed was real?

            Of course he was real. Muhammed didn't just start a religion. He also created an empire. He profoundly affected the lives of millions of people while he was still alive.

            Within a century of his death, the Persian Empire was destroyed, and the Eastern Roman Empire was fatally weakened. The Umayyad Caliphate [wikipedia.org] reached from China and India to central France [wikipedia.org].

            Muhammed was like Julius Caeser and Jesus Christ combined into one person.

            He may have had a greater impact on history than any other human that has ever lived.

            • Muhammed was like Julius Caeser and Jesus Christ combined into one person.

              He may have had a greater impact on history than any other human that has ever lived.

              Maybe. Genghis Khan gave him a run for his money, with an empire of similar extent.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by fenrif ( 991024 )

            He was real. A real psychotic paedophilic murderous warlord from the back end of nowhere who spread his religion of "do everything I say or I'll murder you" throughout the world in the most violent way he possibly could.

      • It seems like, at least in recent history, there has been far more conflicts between christians and christians or muslims and muslims than any sort of crusade.

        Anyway, it'd be cooler if we just got rid of all the religions rather than declare one winner.

      • I'd ratchet it up one notch . . . create a Jesus Christ and a Prophet Muhammad, and then stage a UFC match.

        They haven't been able to find any pictures of Muhammad.

      • "Prophet Muhammad"

          Yeah, and that studio would be getting endless death threats and bombing attempts. Remember what happened in Sweden a few years back?

          Or maybe they should do it to show these violent fanatics that the world won't be bullied by them, but of course that is never going to happen.

  • Sounds like Monty Python (Score:4, Funny)

    by darth_borehd ( 644166 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @06:52PM (#59388832)

    Monty Python had a bit where a director insisted on using Marilyn Monroe to star in his new movie. The interviewer points out that Marilyn Monroe died. Then he says she will be in every shot, lying on the couch and so on. Then the interviewer points out she was cremated. The director fudges again and said they will use a body double for the more physical shots, but that she will be always be on-screen falling out of cupboards and so on.

    Because the idea of using dead movie stars in new movies was considered absurd.

    Was.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      Well, at the end of the skit the director adds that the movie also has "James Dean in a box".

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

      The interviewer is wrong. She's interred in a mausoleum. Hugh Heffner has the spot right next to her.

      You can be sure she's all liquefied and gone by now. Just dried remains.

      Good thing about dead movie stars is they work, don't back talk, don't have sick days, etc.

  • Maybe we can just do things the old fashioned way, but better, for once? Novelty isn't a formula by itself. Enough with the spinning donkeys and zombie Deans, please.

  • Instead of using the long dead ghost of a real A-List actor, why not create one from scratch?!

    • Fine idea, but which A-list actor do you think should become a newly dead ghost? There are so many worthy candidates...

  • ...in a coat he borrowed from James Dean
    And a voice that came from you and me

    - American Pie

    Scarily appropriate!

  • Where this is all headed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Wednesday November 06, 2019 @08:01PM (#59389068)
    Is the construction of a photorealistic computer-generated 3D avatar who will eventually replace actors. We're already partway there with the likes of Hatsune Miku [youtube.com] and CGI TV cartoons created by tying the animated characters' motions to actors [reallusion.com] (who since you never see their real faces are easily replaceable should they demand a raise). As the graphics and animation become more sophisticated, it will eventually supplant the need for a real human actor. Studios will love it because they'll no longer have to pay multi-millions to movie stars, will own and control everything their virtual movie stars do, and the virtual stars will never age, die, or get involved in scandals which destroy their marketable value.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      who since you never see their real faces are easily replaceable should they demand a raise

      I'm not so sure that actors behind the mask can so easily be replaced. While you may find someone with the same size, weight and other matching physical characteristics it is near on impossible to mimic how that original actor moved. For example finding a 6'5" actor with a slim physique is easy .. they are a dime a dozen. But how easy is it to get one who is able to replicate the way John Cleese performed his silly walk? Once a character obtains some measure of success there will be a certain amount of

      • Do you really think acting is a skilled profession? Once you get past stage fright and with some minor experience acting is pretty easy, many people can do it. Kids do acting with zero training. Granted that there are people who would suck at it .. but in general a majority of people can do good acting. The only thing most people may lack is good looks. Let's face it a lot of people are ugly.

        With CGI that all can be fixed. In fact with machine learning a computer can emulate the gait and walk of people lik

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          but in general a majority of people can do good acting.

          your a maroon

        • There will always be room for great actors, but given the plot of most blockbuster movies, the ones that make and cost the most money, mediocre acting could very well be just another special effects input. So maybe all that's needed is to establish a brand, like a Homer Simpson with non-cartoony features. Then it's all a matter of recruiting the animators and animation directors. It would probably still cost a pretty penny to hire the really good ones, but nowhere near the multi-million pay given to Tom, Ke

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sad_ ( 7868 )

        "But how easy is it to get one who is able to replicate the way John Cleese performed his silly walk?"

        there is already enough footage of john cleese's silly walk that you don't need an actor to reproduce it.
        same for anything else, once you have enough material to build upon, you no longer need an actor to do all those things.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Artemis3 ( 85734 )

      It will be a commotion, but this is probably where things will head. Just replace human actors with CGI, and skip a whole bunch of trouble. For example, young actors tend to grow up faster than a sequel is made. Or sometimes the very image for your planned movie saga dies or is incapacitated. Not anymore!

      CGI is getting so good that you could skip going to locations, bothering with cameras, weather, lights, microphones, etc, think computer games (and some are pretty much like watching a movie with some input

    • a big part of movies is celebrity, and a big part of that is celebrities living large.

      Then again we've got the Kardashians for that now, maybe we don't need super star actors.

    • Thereâ(TM)s already movie about it. And itâ(TM)s pretty cool and unique.

      The Congress

  • Not even boomers remember James Dean. How many 80+ year olds go to the movies nowadays?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

      I'm not yet 50, and I've seen one or two of his movies. He's also come up - both by name and in a video clip - in the recent "The Disaster Artist." He's named in songs. He may not be top of mind for most people, but he's famous enough to be recognizable.

  • It's gonna be a Hope & Crosby "Road" flick. I can't wait!!!

  • next are auto-generated realistic movies with imaginary characters that will become as much popular as dicaprio and the like. Next, software available to the general public, free movies, Hollywood death.

  • There, problem solved. Contains what it says on the tin.

    • This could make for the most amazing reboots - imagine if Vivien Leigh could deliver her famous monologue while digging into some fresh brains.

  • Have CGI characters meant to fully replace a human person been able to get out of the Uncanny Valley yet?

    If you don't know what that is: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pm... [tvtropes.org]

    Because if not, this whole thing is going to be very creepy and icky, and they would be far better off not doing it.

    And also, WHY? As far as I know, 1955 happened well before the Vietnam War. Again, why?

  • Jay Sherman foretold this.

  • In death I owe someone a fiver,
    Maybe I should try my hand at drag?,
    James Dean was just a careless driver,
    And Marilyn Munro was just a slag.

  • Why, exactly, would they do this? Maybe my parents, or grandparents, cared who James Dean was. I'm in my 50's, and I surely don't. I imagine many younger folks haven't even heard of him.

    Seriously, why do this?

    • The 'family' of James Dean needs money. Simple as that.

    • Why, exactly, would they do this? Maybe my parents, or grandparents, cared who James Dean was. I'm in my 50's, and I surely don't. I imagine many younger folks haven't even heard of him.

      Seriously, why do this?

      30s and I've heard of him but without googling i can't confirm if I've ever seen one of his movies. and I'm pretty old fashioned for my age. Note: After looking them up I've seen some of Rebel Without a Cause not sure if I've seen the whole thing.

  • I'd never make it through all the commercials at the beginning. Pass

  • We searched high and low for the perfect character to portray the role of Rogan, which has some extreme complex character arcs, and after months of research, we decided on James Dean

    hahhahah horsefeathers. Someone did a showcase of full body CGI and really impressed some CEOs who decided they could cash in on the novelty. They probably made a Johnny Depp short film featuring Captain Jack Sparrow meeting Edward Scissorhands. They threw a dart at the dead celebrity dartboard and decided they could get away wi

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • It's just a PR gimmick to get word out about a film that's probably boring as watching a brick and that no one would actually bother seeing without some other hook.

    None for me, thanks.

  • Most people today only know the name, if they even know that much.

    There's probably a generation or two that for the most part have no idea who he was.

  • And I get very few chances to use that word in the literal sense, so thanks!
  • They saw how perfectly it worked with Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher! Ever see Rogue One?

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close