Bruce Lee to be Resurrected digitally for film

[TumikSmacker]

Wow, I really hope they pull this off

[lukx]

oh my!!! my hero!!! can't wait!!!

[angel]

oh God, it has begun... I said it before, this is just creepy. How long before they go totally crazy and do a Jackie Chan vs Bruce Lee movie?

[lukx]

oh God, it has begun... I said it before, this is just creepy. How long before they go totally crazy and do a Jackie Chan vs Bruce Lee movie?

bring it on :)

[erilaz]

They've been talking about this Bruce Lee resurrection for years. Why can't they just let him rest?

[fx81]

i am wondering who is gonna get paid on behalf of Bruce Lee.

anyways, i dont know if this would be the biggest tribute to such a legend or be just plain disrespectful...

[ParamountCell]

i remember someone posting something about this technology before. i would love to see this, the thing is though it has to be totaly convincing.

[SimonGibson]

If its anything like the quaity of Supermans digital double then it would be sweet :) (Although u could still tell it was digital,..........)

[the-negative]

I think this is just plain disrespectful no matter how "advanced" the actor is.
To me it's like touting Jar-Jar Binks all over again. Style-yes, tech-yes, substance?

[Chaduke]

I think this is just plain disrespectful no matter how "advanced" the actor is.
To me it's like touting Jar-Jar Binks all over again. Style-yes, tech-yes, substance?

I can sort of see your point if you believe that people who were close to Bruce might be offended by a less than accurate portrayal of him, or even more a stretch that Bruce himself might be offended from the grave that someone is profiting from his image now.

On the other hand, I can't imagine the numerous artists who will no doubt sweat over this project have anything but the utmost respect for Bruce Lee.

Equating Bruce's image to Jar-Jar is just plain disrespectful though.

[djprinec]

I first heard about this 6 years ago when a Korean company was making a digital Bruce Lee movie. I was overexited back then, i was waiting and waiting and nothing happend......... untill now.

Being an old Bruce Lee fan, this is great news. I hope they do it right and dont release it untill they nail the digital characther 100%. I wasnt impressed by the CGI Superman, but Davey Jones in POTC 2 rocked big time. So If the story is right, and the techology is used properly this might be a new era in movie making.

Get Donnie Yen or Tommy Carruthers to do the motion capture, well hell get Andy Serkis aswell.

Good luck to all involved!! Don't disappoint the fans, we will come after you and show you the real once inch punch!!! :-)

kind regards

djprince,norway
www.djprince.no (http://www.djprince.no)

[ndat]

I don't think it is right to do this unless they got consent from Bruce before he died. Although he is dead so what's he gonna do about it, lol.

Still it feels somehow disrespectful.

[frogspasm]

i am wondering who is gonna get paid on behalf of Bruce Lee.

That would be: The Heirs of Bruce Lee and Concord Moon LP

[davidwAde]

Well in the article the director states he has bought all the rights to bruce lee's movies, and the' Lee family' is involved with him and dreamworks regarding the movie.

I don't think it's disrespectful to further someones image after they are dead, kinda the whole immortality through memory deal.

Now if they do a bad job........!!

[santiago]

Sweeeet !!!

[FloydBishop]

HERE (http://www.devilducky.com/media/50431/) is a clip that was done back in 1997 I believe. It's a fully 3D Bruce Lee.

[ndat]

Well in the article the director states he has bought all the rights to bruce lee's movies, and the' Lee family' is involved with him and dreamworks regarding the movie.

I don't think it's disrespectful to further someones image after they are dead, kinda the whole immortality through memory deal.

Now if they do a bad job........!!

It's not disrespectful to honor someone after the dead, but to make a puppet out of them and then to make a movie with that puppet just seems to go against personal rights. They are using his image to make a profit without his permision. I don't care if the movie company owns the rights to the other movies or got the permision of his family. Unless they have Bruce Lee's permision they shouldn't be using his image.

I know there aren't many ethical issues to worry about in CG, but I think this is definitally one of them.

[P_T]

I don't think it's disrespectful to further someones image after they are dead, kinda the whole immortality through memory deal.

Now if they do a bad job........!!Exactly, if they fail, they'd be screwing up his image.

They should do a tribute character like Law in Tekken instead of a photoreal copy. Sure it's possible to make a very convincing CG characters but then again Davy Jones and the crews aren't exactly normal human and they take after the personalities of the mocapped actors, who can emulate Bruce Lee's demeanor/personality in this movie?

[wireFrame]

Yeah, I was blown away by this video almost a decade ago. The hardest part would be getting the Bruce Lee acting right (including the voice).

Realistic human cgi clone still looks fake when moving IMO. Head replacement over a body double would be more feasible. If anyone remembers the Jet Li movie "The One", with him fighting his alternate copy, you'll get the idea about head replacement.

[RobertoOrtiz]

Well so far I have seen Audrey Hepburn selling Gap pants (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJR2yCMrHZw)), Fred Astair Selling Vacum cleaners, Steve McQueen selling a 2005 Mustang Cars (Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZzXHq7gKN8)) , Gene Kelly Break Dancing to sell a VW Golf GTI (Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5rJmBFO-fc)) and lets not forget the combo of Louis Armstrong, Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney selling Diet Coke (Link (http://www.advertisementave.com/tv/ad.asp?adid=3)) .


I would say that in this repect, the ad world crossed over the taste line a LONG time ago.
-R

[wireFrame]

Someone should setup a Bruce Lee Foundation: "Be Water My Friend Foundation" if there's any, is where the royalty payments should go.

[Toddski]

No Matter how good the modelling, shading, lighting and animation/mo-cap might be, not matter how convincingly real any images may look, it will NOT be Bruce Lee. Only Bruce Lee could move like he did, only he knew how to carry his mass, transfer his center of gravity, which muscles to fire when. No matter how much they study his movement it will only ever be, at the very best, a pale immitation. Bruce Lee is lost to us and no one can re create him.

So this just smacks of shamelessly opportunistic grave robbing. A cheap gimmick at best.

[RockinAkin]

No Matter how good the modelling, shading, lighting and animation/mo-cap might be, not matter how convincingly real any images may look, it will NOT be Bruce Lee. Only Bruce Lee could move like he did, only he knew how to carry his mass, transfer his center of gravity, which muscles to fire when. No matter how much they study his movement it will only ever be, at the very best, a pale immitation. Bruce Lee is lost to us and no one can re create him.

So this just smacks of shamelessly opportunistic grave robbing. A cheap gimmick at best.
100% Agree... I dont think CG - no matter how complex and detailed - will ever be at the point that it can capture that type of indefinable X factor in human movement. Especially the movement of a legend like Bruce Lee.

[Chadman]

I must say that regardless of the business questions involved there is the fact that remains that you know that it's not a real person physically doing the technique. All the wow factor is lost and respect having done martial arts myself for a short time let alone someone who is more experienced and a viewer.

This was the thing about Bruce, when you saw him in the behind the scenes footage, where you saw technique not hidden by camera tricks, it was very inspriring.

Chad P :hmm:

[monkeybeach]

They may own the right to his movies, but I highly doubt they own his soul as well. It's shameful when a dead person's face is used in advertising, but everyone kind of already regards ad people as vultures anyway, so it's easier to disregard. But a movie is still considered a work of art, an expression of the soul. And regardless of how well they can duplicate his face, they can't duplicate his soul, or claim to know (or understand) the contents of it. So doing this could not be anything but disrespectful. Despite what some might think, integrity still has value.

[spikkel]

Well so far I have seen Audrey Hepburn selling Gap pants (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJR2yCMrHZw))

Ok, that was simply awesome.

[Tarrbot]

Good going animation industry. You've chosen to set your marks high, which is a good thing. It's a noble goal.

While you may have the money and the know-how to get the job done, remember one thing: You've chosen one of the most complex and moving characters the cinema world has ever seen. To pull it off would be a masterpiece.

If there is one piece slightly off, you will have done the equivalent of premature ejaculation and soured the world to your efforts as you have done next to nothing to prove your ability to do this type of thing. There will be no living room discussions about how Bruce Lee's digital double may have been such and such but man, the industry sure could do a great job on recreating any other less mobile dead star in a fine fashion.

Your only saving grace is the millions of people who don't really watch Bruce Lee movies and your ability to dupe these poor sods into thinking that your vision is an accurate one.

The sad part is that this is likely what will happen.

Good luck.

[the-negative]

I can sort of see your point if you believe that people who were close to Bruce might be offended by a less than accurate portrayal of him, or even more a stretch that Bruce himself might be offended from the grave that someone is profiting from his image now.

On the other hand, I can't imagine the numerous artists who will no doubt sweat over this project have anything but the utmost respect for Bruce Lee.

Equating Bruce's image to Jar-Jar is just plain disrespectful though.

I would be OK if they focus on the "potrayal" part, but looking at how the director's talking, the movie might be selling on the "digital actor" point. Not that it's bad, but more of that you don't need to tout it so strongly for the movie just to sell on having a digital actor.

[toontje]

What is this "disrespectful" crap? Is it disrespectful to potray John Nash (by the way, the movie is about 70% accurate), or Martin Luther King Jr., Beethoven, Cleopatra, Julius Ceasar, Ray Charles etc. etc. etc. ???

Bruce Lee was in show bussiness for Christ sake!! He has been russerected hundreds of times already in video games and autobiography movies, statues etc. And I swear Bruce Lee would have been delighted to see him being resurected in this form, even if it would turn out to be crapy. Although making money was part of his life, it wasn't his ultimate goal. I think that making money wouldn't even make his top 5 list. You guys are idolizing him, it's almost like the begining of a new religion.

[Boone]

In some respects I think they resurrected Bruce Lee in the 1995 film Dragon. In that we got closer to the man than ever before, and we were shown that Bruce was a man not only of talent & vision but also of conflict. And these elements appear to have some influence on the way he went about making his films.

I have complete faith in Digital Domain in their ability to recrate Bruce Lee visually, but the film makers themselves should think about what input - if he were around - the man himself would give to the film. That would be the greatest tribute to Bruce Lee.

[danshewan]

They've been talking about this Bruce Lee resurrection for years. Why can't they just let him rest?

Amen to that.

[DZL]

No Matter how good the modelling, shading, lighting and animation/mo-cap might be, not matter how convincingly real any images may look, it will NOT be Bruce Lee. Only Bruce Lee could move like he did, only he knew how to carry his mass, transfer his center of gravity, which muscles to fire when. No matter how much they study his movement it will only ever be, at the very best, a pale immitation. Bruce Lee is lost to us and no one can re create him.

So this just smacks of shamelessly opportunistic grave robbing. A cheap gimmick at best.

bingo.......

[richcz3]

Is there such thing as a CG purist?
Everything we do is rooted in the advancement in technology. There is always a real world challenge and someone or some fx shop up for the task of recreating it.

The problem lies in the advancement of technology itself. If the scenes with Bruce are done in such a "Pushing the Envelope of 200# technology" then in 5 years after the film is released it will be flawed and dated. Cue the "Updated Effects DVD" ala Lucas to keep it modern and technologicaly relevant.

There are subtle and stylized ways of film making that can minimize the "CG Used Here" elements. If the movie is based solely on reanimating his likeness - well....

[SunDog101]

It is kinda neat in a twisted sort of way. But for me personally I am against the idea of bringing back actors that have passed away back to the big screen. I wonder what his wife thinks of all this?

[rock]

Wow after so many clones, Bruce Li, Bruce Lie, Bruce Leung, Bruce Lai, Bruce Liang, Bruce Lei, Bruce Chen, Bruce Leo, Bruce Thai, Bruce Ly, Bruce Ley, Bruce Rhe, Myron Bruce Lee, Bruce K.A. Lea, Tarzen Li, Tarzen Lee, Kowloon Li, Hong Kong Lee, Rocky Lee, Jet Lee, Bronson Lee, Dragon Lee, Conan Lee, Clint Lee, Gypsy Lee, Billy Chang, Alex Kwon, Brute Lee, Jason Scott Lee, and I almost forgot Bruce Le and Lee Bruce, now comes a final clone - Digital Lee. :)

[TheChosen1]

You know what? I bet Bruce Lee would think it was cool. Although I can't speak for him. Where was the outrage over Marlon Brando in Superman? I personally think its better to bring Bruce back for a film than for some commercial.

Sounds like an interesting CG challenge. Its funny how if some CG hobbyist made a photoreal Bruce Lee and posted it on CG talk, people would praise it. The moment some faceless movie studio does it for a film, its shameless grave robbing. If Bruce's heirs are cool with it so am I.

[Tarrbot]

TheChosen1 states:Its funny how if some CG hobbyist made a photoreal Bruce Lee and posted it on CG talk, people would praise it. The moment some faceless movie studio does it for a film, its shameless grave robbing.
Surely you aren't this naive. Obviously if a hobbyist did this it wouldn't be grave robbing since there is NO money involved.

When a studio does it, the grave robbing ribbon can be brought out to pin on the studio's chest. There's money involved.

I'm not saying that this shouldn't be done. What I said earlier is that they should work up to this goal, not start at it.

CEOs aren't just plopped down into a nice CEO chair the first day out of college. This should be the same way. I'm not sure it'll be good enough, that's all I was getting at.

Someone mentioned the possibility that in 5 years it'll look dated. Well, if it looks fine today and in five years it has to be updated, it's not "good enough" now is it? Otherwise it would never need updating and rerendering because it would be as lifelike as life.

I just don't see this happening.

[SOE digital]

I think they resurrected Bruce Lee in the 1995 film Dragon. In that we got closer to the man than ever before

Are you kidding me? Pretty much everything in that film was made up.
The fight where he broke his back never happened (he injured his back lifting weights in real life), the fight he had with the kitchen hands (which forced him to go to college) never ever really happened. The fact that they covered up his drug use for the film was bad enough.
I love Bruce Lee and have always been a big fan, but Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story missed the mark by so much that it is basically an enitrely fictional story.

Anyhoo...I'm pretty bummed that they're going to try this CG Bruce Lee crap. Let the man RIP.

[Chaduke]

Some of you talk as if you knew the man personally, or you now somehow speak to him from beyond the grave.
Last time I checked a dead person doesn't have any rights, doesn't speak, and I wouldn't imagine cares if someone makes money off his/her image. They are DEAD.

If this movie is released don't support it, don't watch it. You'll always have your copy of "Enter the Dragon" and you can read "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do" as many times as you want. Your pristine image of Bruce does not have to be tarnished by this atrocity.

[SOE digital]

So pissing on someones grave is OK because the person is not alive to be offended?

[Chaduke]

So a group of people make a movie in honor of someone they admire, and if they make money for the actual WORK they do to accomplish this task, and many people are willing to pay for the experience this work provides, you equate it to grave pissing.

If they squirted out a turd of a movie and called it digital Bruce Lee, and somehow millions of people went to see it anyway, then you could blame those millions of people for being idiots.

If you somehow got tricked into paying for it then I suppose you'd have reason to complain, but judging by your comments you'd never go see it. However, none of that as happened and people are spitting on the project already. I find that a bit amusing.

[SOE digital]

you equate it to grave pissing.

Did I compare it to grave pissing?
I was just asking you if you think it's wrong to literaly piss on someone's grave. I mean, they're dead right? So what do they care? That's the attitude you've shown.

[Chaduke]

You are absolutely comparing it because you asked me the question. I don't see this as being disrespectful in any way. If anything it's showing a very high degree of respect for the man.

My attitude about him being dead is that it's not like you're taking money out of his pocket, I don't think a dead person cares about money. If you pissed on his grave I doubt it would matter to him either. It's not something I would condone though because that indeed is disrespectful.

Making a movie in this way does not become disrespectful simply for the fact that someone will profit from it. If they are intentionally setting out to make him look bad with this then perhaps that would be disrespectful, but that's simply not the case here.

I'd also like to ask, did Bruce Lee have some huge moral objection to people profiting from his image? Maybe I'm missing something because it was certainly ok with him while he was alive.

[SOE digital]

Don't put words into my mouth.
I never said anything about people making money of his image and the side effects.
I said they should let the man rest in peace, and now you've taken it some other way.

[Chaduke]

The second half of my last post was not a direct reply to you SOE, only the first half was.

If you believe that Bruce Lee has feelings after being dead then go ahead and believe that, I wont argue with you. I'm only looking for logical explanations to why people think this is disrespectful.

[SOE digital]

I know that the dead have no feelings or emotions, etc.
The thing is, the CG Bruce Lee is going to look terrible. No CG/VFX house has ever produced a realistic/convincing fully CG human being ever...and I'm sure it'll be a long time before someone does.
It's going to be tacky and there is no need for it. Why should someone's image be used (poorly in this case) for someone elses profit?

[davidwAde]

Eh, no1 knows if the dead do or don't have feelings, kuz no1 has ever died, and talked about being dead...but thats a whole different discussion haha.

[SOE digital]

If you want to be taken seriously, don't substitute words for numbers.

[monkeybeach]

You know what? I bet Bruce Lee would think it was cool. Although I can't speak for him. Where was the outrage over Marlon Brando in Superman? I personally think its better to bring Bruce back for a film than for some commercial.

Brando was "reprising" a role he had already done. That's worlds apart from resurrecting someone to do something entirely new, that they have never agreed to do. He might have been okay with it, no doubt, but since he's not around to confirm it, you have to assume that you DON'T have the right to use him. It's like one of the most basic principles of law.

Some of you talk as if you knew the man personally, or you now somehow speak to him from beyond the grave. Last time I checked a dead person doesn't have any rights, doesn't speak, and I wouldn't imagine cares if someone makes money off his/her image. They are DEAD.

Well, last time you apparently weren't checking very thoroughly. Dead people have plenty of rights. Defamation of character still applies, and the right to profit from their image is most definately NOT free for all.

[rcronin]

What interests me is if an audience will be able to suspend disbelief knowing 100% that the image in front of them is a computer illusion mimicking a dead man. Davey Jones worked, but audiences know that the actor was alive so the 'trick' worked. Imagine going to an Elvis concert (who I'm sure will be resurrected shortly after Bruce) and a photoreal hologram was projected with mo-capped performance. Would girls be crying, screaming, fainting knowing full-well that Elvis is dead and that this is a technology trick? There is a level of connection that CG just can't duplicate. The magnet of CG is more like how we are drawn to a magic trick.
CG Bruce Lee will of course, have a 'wow' factor for a brief time and audiences will buy tickets just to see the extent of the illusion but I'm not too sure if people will emotionally connect with our pixel pals.
R

[lukx]

- but I'm not too sure if people will emotionally connect with our pixel pals.
R

didn't some people emotionally connect to Gorillaz (http://www.reviewcentre.com/Gorillaz_Music_13.htm)?

[P_T]

Well, last time you apparently weren't checking very thoroughly. Dead people have plenty of rights. Defamation of character still applies, and the right to profit from their image is most definately NOT free for all.Indeed. Take a look at Forbes' Top-earning dead celebrities list. :D
http://www.forbes.com/2002/08/12/0812deadintro.html

Like you said, when people see Davy Jones, they don't associate him to any famous personality, he was merely a man in a suit so to speak. With Bruce Lee, every gestures and facial expressions will be under scrutiny. It will only takes one mistake to ruin everything.

[Boone]

Re: SOE Digital.

Hi there.

I have to say that you are indeed informed. A quick look on IMDB presents quite a few "goofs" that the movie made. Not only that, I too have made a goof - Dragon was released in 1993 and not 1995 as I had posted previously.

Well done. :)

[SOE digital]

Not well informed, just an avid Bruce Lee fan and martial artist. :D
And yeah I always remember the year they made that film because they were finishing it up when Brandon was killed filming The Crow...which also happened on my 6th birthday. :eek:

I'll admit I love Dragon and I've had it on video ever since I was a kid, and now on DVD. It's a great martial arts flick with more to it than just that. It's also the only one of my martial art flicks that my girlfriend likes...and that's not just because of Jason's body. :D
I'm just worried a CG character of Bruce is going to portay more bollocks to his real character than they did with Dragon.
Bruce Lee is a legend...and I think by 'resurrecting' him they're be at risk of damaging that.

[Chaduke]

Well, last time you apparently weren't checking very thoroughly. Dead people have plenty of rights. Defamation of character still applies, and the right to profit from their image is most definately NOT free for all.

I'm not talking about the living people who legally own those rights, I was referring to Bruce Lee as a person. By not being alive he inherently cannot enjoy rights or feel the brunt of being defamed or misrepresented. I felt the need to iterate that because people were talking as if he were still alive and they knew him.

So there's plenty of questions and doubt on the idea of whether this can be done convincingly, and I totally respect that. I think good or bad it will turn out to be a positive thing because it will serve as an example for others to learn, and increase the interest in Bruce Lee. Letting him rest in peace to me means let him be forgotten.

[santiago]

I think that if they pulled it off, and this digital Bruce is indistinguishable from the real one, then Bruce Lee fans would be delighted, and they'd be saying "please, make more movies of our hero, please! please! sequel ! ! ! ! sequel ! ! ! ! trilogy ! ! ! ! I'll buy the Bruce Lee shampoos and mouse pads.... etc. please more Bruce ! ! !

But of course, it seems that most fans are dead frightened that they won't make a realistic Bruce Lee, and that's where this "disrespectful" argument jumps into place in this raging forum topic.


I say give the poor lads a chance to prove themselves. They think they can make a realistic Bruce? I'd love to see them try. I think Bruce Lee is awesome, irreplaceable by any human, but I definitely think he can be replicated in 3D, but I agree that the chance of failure in replicating him are like 90-something %.


And YES, if they don't make a truly realistic Bruce Lee, only then would I say that it's shameful, but I'd like to see them try first, then let some friends watch it and tell me if it's good or not, and THEN I'd go see him on the big screen :scream:

I do NOT like it when "cg artists" are afraid of animating humans, it'll become common place eventually, and all of this prejudice on cg human quality will look silly years from now when you look back

[wireFrame]

I think Bruce Lee would laugh at the movie instead of getting mad (or maybe both). Not because they "resurrected" him digitally (I prefer the term cloned), but because the animators or the mocap actor don't understand how Bruce Lee's mind work when he acts. It would be simpler if he's alive and he'll teach them his fighting moves or share to them how he thinks when acting. But, he's no longer available.

Imitating Bruce Lee's moves, manner of speaking, and minute mannerisms are collectively very hard to do so he would easily say, "You've done it all wrong, hahaha!"

Be water my friend!

[SunDog101]

The thing is, the CG Bruce Lee is going to look terrible. No CG/VFX house has ever produced a realistic/convincing fully CG human being ever...and I'm sure it'll be a long time before someone does.
It's going to be tacky and there is no need for it. Why should someone's image be used (poorly in this case) for someone elses profit?

I couldn't agree more with this statement. I too highly doubt a fully realistic, completely convincing human CG character will be attainable especially with the range of motion needed and subtle details in muscle movements etc. They may do a good job but there is always something that will give it away. Even on the off chance that they do accomplish this goal, I would say that the profits made from the movie will never cover the cost of creating such a convincing character. I doubt they are doing it to make money.

[Chaduke]

Don't be surprised if it is done really poorly but still makes a lot of money in the process.

A good advertising campaign coupled with the general public's insatiable appetite for trash could make this a winner at the box office.

Of course there will be parts where people will endlessly debate the authenticity, as if anyone can be worthwhile authority on what Bruce Lee really would look or sound like in a given situation.

[vauric]

Its very sad really...another example of CGI mixed with crappy Hollywood money making business.

If I wanna see Bruce Lee, I'll watch one of his movies, thank you very much.

[Boone]

This appears to be a film about a lad who withdraws into a fantasy world where Bruce Lee is his mentor - through collections of that lad's memories of watching his films. So the Bruce Lee he sees and hears is different from the Bruce Lee in real life. So I'd say that this film will be about the impact Bruce Lee has had on people.

And Rob Cohen is obviously aware of what people thought of Dragon(1993) and will create an improved film from that feed back. Also, he is working with the Lee family on this so I'd safely say that its in safe hands.

And for those who say that the VFX will be "terrible": The fact is you have not seen the film yet. With the great talent of Digital Domain behind this it could very well be the film to break new ground in the area of Digital actors.

[toontje]

I think the best thing for Digital Domain to do is to release a realistic human demo some time soon, otherwise people might get suspecious. No one wants another "Polar Express" or "Final Fantasy the Flop Within". This Bruce Lee character must be trully indistuingishable from the real one. I think it is possible. Just look around in these forums and you'll find still images from talented people that are just impossible to tell if it CG or real. Weta did a pretty good job too in Matrix Reloaded (afterwards I read that in lots of scenes, digital Neo, Morpheus and Smiths (duh!) were used).

I think it is possible, but they better make damn sure that they are simulating the camera and film stock too as acurate as possible. We don't want the slightest hint the character is composited in its environment even if he's trully photorealistic. The illusion may not be anything less than 100%.

[SOE digital]

They should prove they can do a convincing CG human before taking a massive leep to making Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee has soo many little manurisms, smirks, smiles, stances amd taunts that they'll never be able to pull it off.

Also, he is working with the Lee family on this so I'd safely say that its in safe hands

But he was working heavily with the Lee family on Dragon...and he still made a Hollywood sham.

I really hope I'm wrong about all this...and that they can create something that does justice to the man, but I'm certain it wont.

[vauric]

Rob Cohen...Thats the guy who directed Dragonheart isnt it? (scared now...)

And he 's making this film in partnership with Dreamworks?? (terrified...)

Says it all......;p

[SOE digital]

...he also directed The Fast and the Furious didn't he? That's why there's a scene in the film that has Dragon on the TV in the background.
Anyhoo...TFATF sucked arse.

[bmcaff]

This appears to be a film about a lad who withdraws into a fantasy world where Bruce Lee is his mentor - through collections of that lad's memories of watching his films. So the Bruce Lee he sees and hears is different from the Bruce Lee in real life. So I'd say that this film will be about the impact Bruce Lee has had on people.


Cool, so it's a remake of "No Rtreat, No Surrender" :D (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089695/)

On a more serious note, aside from all the arguements about repect and ethics I honestly can't see how this will be anything other than an out of context rehash of the same things we have seen in Lee's real movies without any value of it's own. I won't hypotisise about what Bruce might have felt about it but it will sure lack any evolution of his style that we surely would have seen had he lived. But what ever it is, please don't let it be another "Game of Death" :scream:

[SOE digital]

The worst thing about Game of Death was by far the voice dubbing for his 'battle cries'.
God they were so annoying. Sounded NOTHING like the real Lee. Even I can do Lee's battle noises and cries better and I'm not even oriental.

[JTD]

Cool, so it's a remake of "No Rtreat, No Surrender" :D (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089695/)" :scream:

I had forgotten all about that movie. I thought this one might be a remake of Sidekicks (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105402/).

On a personal note, I'm not supportive of this effort. Regardless of whether or not his family has given the go-ahead, nobody has asked Bruce.

[Chaduke]

Nobody asked Bruce, because he's dead and can't give a reply.

So what you're saying is that even though he's dead and can't communicate he still has feelings? Forgive me if I find this amusing but from where do you derive this belief?

[vauric]

I think bringing dead people back to life using CG is stupid. They'll never be as good as the real actors. So why do it?

It will only tarnish their original work.

If you wanna do realistic humans, use CG for stunt doubles, or people in the background, etc.

One of the most realistic characters so far, Davey Jones wasnt all human (mix of human elements with creature design). It worked really well from live action reference with a great actor.

I dont think he would have worked as well if he was a realistic human character (face not hidden underneath tentacles, etc).

All the hard work they gonna put into making Bruce believable ...and we all know it wont be as good as the original. (how can it be if the real Bruce isnt alive anymore?)

Thats just my 2 cents really ;)

[Chaduke]

I think bringing dead people back to life using CG is stupid. They'll never be as good as the real actors. So why do it?


Wow if that's your attitude then why try anything? Why even be involved in anything artistic? Why even be human?

The point is move forward and learn from the mistakes and imperfections. Its about trying something new, going to a place you've never been, growing.

Digital actors could be better than human actors. Anyone who understands technology knows this on some level, and those who object probably don't want to see this happen.

As this industry moves forward it will only get easier for people to accomplish the task of creating realistic, convincing human characters. It's inevitable.

[vauric]

Digital actors could be better than human actors

Errr....ok....and Robots would probably be better than us at a lot of things...so lets replace most humans with machines......

I didnt mean that digital actors arent possible..."The Incredibles" for example. Great animators, good actors as well creating great animation (there re others, just quoting one).

And Im not saying either "dont innovate, dont move forward"..but try to bring to life new characters, original creations.

Create new actors, which cant be done any other way than in CG. Dont try and replicate reality, specially dead actors. If they tried and created a new CG martial artist actor and try to make it realistic, fair enough...but not an existing screen icon like Bruce Lee.

This is only my opinion of course, my views.

Im all for innovation and moving forward, just going the right way, its like comparing the polar express with the Incredibles...;p

cheers

[vauric]

Going back to Pirates of the Caribbeans 2...ILM didnt try to recreate a CGI Johnny Depp (how bad would that have been)...they used CG on things which (mostly) needed it.

Ok, Davey Jones could have been a real actor, but things like the tentacles would have been hard to recreate mechanically.

But trying to replicate Johnny Depp in CG ??...I'd rather watch a real him than a clone anytime...

And my attitude is weird??...;p

cheers

[Chaduke]

I think replicating real life (or attempting to) is a logical step in the creative learning process.

It's an easy way to measure where you are, and it serves as a good stepping stone in developing the skills required to create more original works.

In regards to your statement about replacing humans with robots - everything does not have to be black and white. To some people, perhaps most people for a long time, just the idea of it being a real person will be enough for them to prefer it over an illusion.

Everyone does not have to think the same way and prefer the same things. If some people happen to prefer robots or digital actors it doesn't automatically mean we need to do away with humans altogether. One does not have to eliminate the other.

If some people don't think they'll ever like digital actors or don't think they'll ever be good enough, it doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to try.

[Boone]

Re: Bmcaff.

OMG NO! Tell me I did not just load that page and read the plot outline!:eek: You have got to be shitting me!:eek:

Now I am worried.

Re: SOE Digital.

"And Rob Cohen is obviously aware of what people thought of Dragon(1993) and will create an improved film from that feed back."

You've let me down: I thought you were a good study, Mr Bond.:D

[P_T]

I think replicating real life (or attempting to) is a logical step in the creative learning process. Sure it is, again Davy Jones is the perfect example of replicating real life attempt. The actor is still alive for acting and voice reference.

Trying to replicate someone as unique, someone who has become a larger-than-life iconic symbol like Bruce Lee... talk about biting-more-than-you-can-chew scenario.

A talking Marlon Brando head obscured by crystal hologram is one thing, a full view of realistic CG human acting in a movie is another, specially since it's Bruce Lee, who can move like he could? Is there a muscle simulation system complex enough for the digital Bruce to look convincing when fighting bare chested? What about facial rig for all his funky expressions?

If they said they want to create a generic digital human actor in a movie that's fine, as long as it looks real enough, people can probably accept it, but what's the point of fully creating a digital copy of a screen legend? artificial diamond isn't as valued as the real one, noone cares about a copy of Monalisa.

[Boone]

Yeah, but it would really be a matter of time and money nailing a CG Human. The reason Jurassic Park was so damn great was because ILM had roughly four years to perfect their shots, whereas when they work on something today they usually get only 6 months to 2 years. If Digital Domain has already done a couple of years working it out there is no reason why their Digital double cannot be near perfect - maybe only a few minor flaws that only the bloody fantastic can distinguish.

Time, money and effort.

[Chaduke]

but what's the point of fully creating a digital copy of a screen legend?


The point is for people to watch and enjoy. As difficult as it may be for you to absorb, people will enjoy watching this. People will marvel over the technical mastery required to accomplish such a task.
Many fans of Bruce Lee will rejoice in that they can get an extension of what they already love. Not everyone has this strange relationship with Bruce Lee that is both sacred and simultaneously in jeopardy of being corrupted by a less than perfect representation of him.

[MrPositive]

So let me get this straight. Some of you would rather they not try at all, because the odds are stacked against them? It's refreshing that so many people on this site are for cg advancement.....sarcasm.

[DorkmanScott]

I still have to say "what's the point"?

As far as I know, the real fascination with Bruce Lee isn't what he looks like, it's the amazing things he could do with his body, the discipline and the training. It's the same with every martial artist. What's entertaining and astounding about them is the fact that they can do these things.

Then you do a CG Bruce Lee. No matter how good he looks, he is still basically a cartoon. The CG Bruce Lee is uninhibited by real-world forces like gravity or the limitations of his skeleton or muscles. The animators and riggers add such limitations and physics simulations, but you see a CG character and you know he could do anything.

When such a character is necessary to serve the story (like Gollum or Davy Jones), that's one thing. But when one of the major POINTS of the person of Bruce Lee is that "this was what he could actually do", I fail to see the real logic behind doing it CG.

I would rather see a talented look-alike actor who has trained and trained and does it for the camera like Bruce did, than a photoreal exact replica of Bruce Lee that may be impressive on a technical level, but doesn't serve a major purpose beyond that.

I would say the same with other actors being resurrected, too. The reason those actors were huge is because they had their style, their particular charms. No one can duplicate those in a CG animation, or mocap. Notice that examples like Audrey Hepburn selling Gap jeans, Fred Astaire break dancing, and other such ads typically have them doing things entirely out of character. If you've got someone who can perform like Humphrey Bogart, don't CG Bogart on top of him. Let the guy perform!

[thx1173]

chadduke
Its about trying something new, going to a place you've never been, growing.

lol! Yeah, because a CG Bruce Lee is entirely an original and creative idea right?

CG should be used to create characters that cannot be created any other way(Gollum,Davey Jones), not some creepy marketing gimmick.

[MrPositive]

CG should be used to create characters that cannot be created any other way(Gollum,Davey Jones)

So CG is only about fantasy characters eh? I can't wait until Stahlberg and all the VFX guys who create digitally, anatomically correct human doubles for a living read that.

[Chaduke]

When such a character is necessary to serve the story (like Gollum or Davy Jones), that's one thing. But when one of the major POINTS of the person of Bruce Lee is that "this was what he could actually do", I fail to see the real logic behind doing it CG.


This happens to be only your perspective. It probably wont work for you but as I explained in my last post it will work for other people. People will still enjoy it, even some hard core Bruce Lee fans, because they simply wont care about these things. Not everyone is intimately aware of the level of skill required to perform the feats that Bruce Lee could perform, but they still enjoyed the imagery on the screen.


lol! Yeah, because a CG Bruce Lee is entirely an original and creative idea right?


If you want to narrow it down to "a CG Bruce Lee" then the idea at least became unoriginal back in the early 90s when the "World Heroes" video game was out. We both know what's being attempted here is a far cry from that simple definition. In fact, if you ask many of the posters in this thread they would tell you its so far ahead that its simply unattainable.

To try something new, to reach a level that hasn't been reached before does not have include an entirely original concept.

[Chaduke]

edit : accidental double post.

[vauric]

So CG is only about fantasy characters eh? I can't wait until Stahlberg and all the VFX guys who create digitally, anatomically correct human doubles for a living read that.

Im sorry, but with all due respect for these artists, its not because they're doing that for a living that its the right way to go for a movie.

Final Fantasy spirit within had very good human models at the time....Was the film any better?..<coughs> not really....

And remember, a living, breathing Bruce Lee is quite different than what these artists are creating.

Its a very personal thing isnt it. As much as I respect these artists , its not my kinda thing, and probably others CG artists as well. (I dont particularly like human cg models, no matter how good they are, no interest in trying to replicate that).

I think people looking forward to Bruce Lee in CG are CGartists themselves (they want to see CG pushed.)

But thinking about emotions, the soul of an individual, the acting, etc...it 'll never be Bruce Lee.

Now if you want to create digital human actor, why not push the characterisation, make them more human by pushing the boundaries or acting, not looks.

The Matrix didnt have Neo as a CG Keanu Reeves for the acting bits, but for the surreal fighting sequences...(even if in this case a CG Keanu would have maybe been better, hehe...sorry).

Anyway...this discussion could go on forever...its down to personal taste...some people will enjoy CG actor because of the new amazing shaders they re using or how realistic the hair flows...<sigh>....

Me, I dont care...gimme brilliant acting and amazing animation anyday. Now a CG cartoony version of Bruce Lee would be great, over the top fighting sequences, a caricature of him, that'd be interesting...;)

[DorkmanScott]

This happens to be only your perspective.
I think it's clear from this thread alone that it's NOT only my perspective. There's a lot of people in the same boat as me that don't see the point in this.

It probably wont work for you but as I explained in my last post it will work for other people. People will still enjoy it, even some hard core Bruce Lee fans, because they simply wont care about these things. Not everyone is intimately aware of the level of skill required to perform the feats that Bruce Lee could perform, but they still enjoyed the imagery on the screen.
You REALLY think people aren't aware of how skillful Bruce Lee was? You don't have to know the ins and outs of martial arts to be able to watch him and go "God DAMN, I could NEVER do that!" I think that everyone who watches Bruce Lee is aware, at the very least, that whatever level of skill is required, it's not one they possess. Or, if it IS one they possess, they appreciate Lee the more for it.

If the only thing people responded to is the imagery itself, then there's no point in creating a digital double to do it, at least not throughout the ENTIRE film. Another trained martial artist/actor could also do it. Again, get a look-alike.

It was, and is, Bruce Lee, the man, who people responded to, and who people admire. The problem is, creating a CG replica of him isn't replicating what made him special. It's only replicating what he looked like, and MAYBE how he moved if you have some really good animators (if you have someone who can mocap as well as Bruce Lee could have done it, just make HIM the star of the movie). But it isn't replicating HIM, or the talents that are truly what make him impressive.

At best, it reduces Bruce Lee the person to Bruce Lee the character. He becomes like a Mickey Mouse, you throw him in for brand recognition. Like others, I find it disrespectful to a man who spent his life cultivating his body and his mind to reduce him to a technological selling point.

[Chaduke]

I think it's clear from this thread alone that it's NOT only my perspective


I was mistaken to use the word only there. I'm aware that you're not the only one who fails to see the point in it, and that's why I was trying to provide one.


You REALLY think people aren't aware of how skillful Bruce Lee was? You don't have to know the ins and outs of martial arts to be able to watch him and go "God DAMN, I could NEVER do that!" I think that everyone who watches Bruce Lee is aware, at the very least, that whatever level of skill is required, it's not one they possess. Or, if it IS one they possess, they appreciate Lee the more for it.


I'm not talking about ALL people here, nor the level of awareness you described. I'm talking about SOME people, perhaps a large group of them, that wont be aware of this while they're watching it to a degree that it prevents them from enjoying it. I'm not alone here. Obviously the producers of the film feel the same way.


It was, and is, Bruce Lee, the man, who people responded to, and who people admire.


and for almost everyone that man consisted of images on a screen and sounds coming from a speaker, unless you read his books of course. If someone makes it into more than that in their own minds then fine, but very few people can say they knew him personally.

Bruce Lee himself chose this when he decided to become an actor. Millions of people would know him by his image, not by who he actually was. Very few can actually appreciate the effort it took to attain that level of skill.

We may disagree on this but its a fairly common thing you hear from professional athletes, musicians, actors and other people of great skill in a certain area.

[thx1173]

Mr Positive
So CG is only about fantasy characters eh? I can't wait until Stahlberg and all the VFX guys who create digitally, anatomically correct human doubles for a living read that.

No, you said "only fantasty characters", not me. CG stunt doubles are for stunts that are either impossible to achieve through live action or too dangerous for a stuntperson to perform. So, CG is being used for something only it can do. That's a good thing.

This is not the same thing. Why not just hire a martial arts expert? Because then you can't sell the gimmick: "Hey, a CG Bruce Lee....wow!".

There's a film out now about the life of Queen Elizabeth. The actress gives a great performance and looks amazingly like her. CG? Nope.......just found a good actress and with the aid of makeup, she turns in an amazing performance.

This just cheapens the legend of a deceased actor.

[MrPositive]

Mr Positive
So CG is only about fantasy characters eh? I can't wait until Stahlberg and all the VFX guys who create digitally, anatomically correct human doubles for a living read that.

No, you said "only fantasty characters", not me. CG stunt doubles are for stunts that are either impossible to achieve through live action or too dangerous for a stuntperson to perform. So, CG is being used for something only it can do. That's a good thing.

This is not the same thing. Why not just hire a martial arts expert? Because then you can't sell the gimmick: "Hey, a CG Bruce Lee....wow!".

There's a film out now about the life of Queen Elizabeth. The actress gives a great performance and looks amazingly like her. CG? Nope.......just found a good actress and with the aid of makeup, she turns in an amazing performance.

This just cheapens the legend of a deceased actor.

Well, I'm pretty certain the point of a CG Lee is that they cannot find a suitable actor that can both thespate with the best of them, perform the proper moves, and look like Lee (it probably doesn't exist). What if this comes out and it is fantastic, then what? I mean we've allready got the "it's going to suck and show disrespect" conglomerate covered. If everybody could preconceive the future success of something, then we would have one long chopped up Lord of the Rings movie and Daniel Craig would have been the worst Bond ever as everyone predicted, incorrectly. I'm sure if they cannot deliver something of high quality that does the material justice, then it won't get made. Comparing the initial foray of Final Fantasy with what they can and will accomplish in the future seems ludicrous.
Why can they not hire an actor for mocap and acting and use him as the basis for the CG character in the movie, ala Davey Jones and Gollum (by the way, those two characters are just adaptations of the human form). Nobody seemed to have much trouble with those two characters and their acting levels.

[DorkmanScott]

Well, Chaduke, you do make good points.

I guess I just thought it was bad enough when the producers don't want to make any film that hasn't been made before. Now they don't even want to use new actors!

Oh well.

[SOE digital]

What ever happened to the Bruce Lee bio-flick they were going to makine in China, using Stephen Chow as Bruce Lee?
A few thousand more situps and a bit more cardio work and he wouldn't be far off the mark. Much more close than Jason Scott Lee ever was.
http://www.lapropagationduchaos.net/cine/kung_fu_hustle/kung_fu_hustle_stephen_chow.jpg
http://image2.sina.com.cn/ent/m/c/2004-12-27/U1017P28T3D611742F329DT20041227172430.jpg

[P_T]

The point is for people to watch and enjoy. As difficult as it may be for you to absorb, people will enjoy watching this. People will marvel over the technical mastery required to accomplish such a task. Many fans of Bruce Lee will rejoice in that they can get an extension of what they already love. Not everyone has this strange relationship with Bruce Lee that is both sacred and simultaneously in jeopardy of being corrupted by a less than perfect representation of him.The thing is, most filmmakers have been avoiding even hyper realistic look in their movies and now suddenly someone wants to make a fully photorealistic CG recreation of Bruce? How can you find it hard to believe that some people, specially the fans like me, are sceptical about it?

If they showed that they can make a CG human acting in full view that doesn't look like a zombie, maybe I'd be less sceptical about this, but they haven't. You really think they can get themselves out of the Uncanny Valley? Have a complex muscle simulation system in place for realistic human? You think they've bought or have something like Face Robot?

I guess my problem with this is... I don't want them using Bruce as their CG experiment. I don't want him to be the first actor brought back to life, while probably still looking quite as dead. I want him to be the most realistically done CG actor when all the technologies are in place, only then I can look forward to this sort of project. In the mean time, use someone else, the young Marlon Brando perhaps? See how his fans would like it.

[Chaduke]

I myself am very skeptical and don't find it all hard to believe others would be, especially considering who's making the film. However, I'm not going to set an impossible level of expectation in order to be happy with it. I'll probably enjoy watching it even if it's pretty bad.

One thing I have a problem with is accusing this of being disrespectful to Bruce Lee and the reasons behind it is that people get paid for the work they do on it, or because they say its going to suck without even seeing the end result.

The other thing is the statement "I don't see the point in doing this". Well, there certainly is a point to it and I've tried to explain that. The producers see this point, and I have no reason to believe that they're just out to make a buck off of some cheap Hollywood gimmick regardless if it makes Bruce Lee look bad, and his family is in on it as well. At the end of it all there will probably be a lot of people calling it that, because a lot of people are calling it that now, but that still wont prove that the producers of the film and Bruce's family showed disrespect to him, intentionally or not.

Whether it succeeds in being 100% perfect to every fan who no doubt has their own idea what perfect is, I still think its a positive thing and I still think many people will enjoy watching it. I don't think any of the horrible representations of him that have been done in the past really hurt his image, and neither will this. If anything it will increase the interest in Bruce Lee and inspire more people to learn about him.

[monkeybeach]

Nobody asked Bruce, because he's dead and can't give a reply.

And that's exactly why this should not be done. He did not consent. You can't use someone's image or persona unless they allow you, and since Bruce is dead, he obviously won't do that. You know that business about being considered innocent until proven guilty? It's the same thing. If they didn't actively say yes, you have to assume they said no.

[Chaduke]

And that's exactly why this should not be done. He did not consent. You can't use someone's image or persona unless they allow you, and since Bruce is dead, he obviously won't do that. You know that business about being considered innocent until proven guilty? It's the same thing. If they didn't actively say yes, you have to assume they said no.


If I understand correctly, whoever owns the rights to his image can legally use it, and in this case they own those rights. Am I wrong here? Are you telling me that making this movie is illegal?

[monkeybeach]

Nah, not illegal, just a little immoral.

[Ravis]

All they're gonna do is have this 3D model re-enact every signature gestures/moves he's done in past movies which brings up the point of.... "what's the point?!?" if I wanted to see that, I'll just rent the original movie. What they gonna do? make him to surreal moves he never performed in real life to trivialize the original skills he was known for?

[Boone]

Re: Ravis.

Yeah, but aint that the point of the film? The images that he sees on the TV screen are so ingrained in the young mans mind that he sees a ghost standing infront of him - that only repeats the gestures and words of Bruce Lee from the films. Thats more plausable than a Bruce Lee in his mind that comes up with new sayings about Martial arts etc. This young man has no other way of seeing Bruce Lee in a different light than in collections from those films.

Though it would be quite an interesting idea if the lad actually believed 100% that he was Bruce Lee! Man, I have to speak to Rob Cohen like now!:D

[Aruna]

I posted a little something about this on my blog, but if there's anyone out there than can do photoreal humans as well as ILM and WETA, it's DD. I'm probably a bit biased as well these days. :) Remember the scenes in Fight Club? Norton blowing his mouth open (albeit some of that was photography), the sex scene. In xXx, DD did Vin Diesels face and head for a couple stunt scenes with the motorbike.

Along the morals of recreating Bruce Lee, I can't comment. I enjoy all of Lee's films, and his family is in the film business, so it would stand to reason that they'd like to make money on the popularity of Bruce Lee, despite what sort of morals some people might have.

I personally can't wait to see what the final product will look like, and even after seening some turntables of him, I have high hopes. Technically, it'll be great. Animation will be much harder.

[artistheat]

As long as they don't do something that's not in his character...Then go for it...The Lee Family is supporting it...So we'll see now John Wayne and Bruce Lee riding off into the sunset...lol...

Is there any Pictures of the model Bruce Lee that's going to be use any where?

[stdriver]

I am bruce lee fan and i hope they can make his dream come true and finish this movie that he wanted to make but he had not time to make it and died

i made some image of this idea he wanted i posted at my site
http://home.deds.nl/~equality/brucelee_unfinished_movieplan.gif

This images bruce toke in 1972 for his canntonies movie
that he wanted to play as sei fung in the role but saddly his dream about
this movie never come true he died in 1973.

This images was founded in the Documentary movie "Bruce Lee the Legend 1977"
If any movie company see this i hope you can make this movie and make his
dream come true, maybe in future it possible to recrate bruce
body with computer grafic.

[Bentagon]

I've got mixed feelings about this. Usually, I'd say this type of thing is just "not done", but on the other hand, with the storyline it has - with this meaning, as someone else mentioned, that all the moves and characteristics should come from his films - I do find it acceptable. If they'd put him in something new, it'd be like trying to hijack his soul, and using him as a gimmick rather than something that's important to the story. But all it would be now is basically recreating the multiple performances, so they could be used in new visual perspectives, while adding some new shots/scenes to create good consistency.

Whether they'll be able to pull it off, I don't know. I doubt it. Especially considering you need to really understand how he moves to make the "puppet" move correctly.


Now Chaduke, I did notice two quotes of yours that I was wondering about:

Digital actors could be better than human actors. Anyone who understands technology knows this on some level, and those who object probably don't want to see this happen. How could digital actors be better? Do you really believe a digital actor could have performances like Philip Seymour Hoffman (just to name a personal favorite)? Sure, we'll get to the point that CG can be 100% realistic. But only maybe, just maybe, will a team of animators be able to have the acting skill that an actor of his calibre has (considering they should all be animating the same character, and everything should be as consistent and connected as with one person acting). And even if that should miraculously happen, the time it would take to actually animate all those physical subtleties, required by his kind of subtle performances, to get that 100% realistic result in all types of shots, production would take ages. That's why animators simplify. But I doubt that a simplified performance could be better than (or even as good as) something as subtle as a PS Hoffman performance.
I'm sure we'll be able to have adequate digital actors. Even great ones in cases where the type of character allows it (such as Gollum, or Kong). But watch out when you start combining the word "better" with something as personal, expansive and complex as acting.

and for almost everyone that man consisted of images on a screen and sounds coming from a speaker, unless you read his books of course. If someone makes it into more than that in their own minds then fine, but very few people can say they knew him personally.Here you're starting to confuse the message with the messenger. Yes,essentialy, he's just an image on a screen and a sound coming from your speakers. But what comes accross is an attitude, a thought process, a skill, a person. Surely, when you're talking with someone in reallife, you don't think about how they look, or how they sound, but what the way they look or sound tells you. It's the whole point in acting.

And sure, no-one of us knew him personally, but the way he interpret his roles is something inherently unique to him. Trying to take that from him would be - like I said earlier - like trying to hijack his soul (since to most of us, body and soul still feel connected), and that would be completely unethical. Fortunately, that's not the case with this film.

[JostHo]

In my opinion the main point in this matter is: Nobody can ask Bruce, because he's dead.
Would he agree? Nobody knows. The true rights in his body, soul and work belong only to himself.

Why do a movie with a digital Bruce Lee?
Choose a living actor, who can agree in such a project.

But maybe Bruce Lee is worth a good opening weekend...
(My advice for hollywood: Remake "the conquerer"! The duke really sucked in that movie. /irony off)

[ArcAngelous]

I read the review about the script and I'm hoping this movie does not come off cheap or campy. I mean, although karate kid was big in our day (anyone who is at least in mid 20 or over), time has past since you could take a movie like that seriously.




But maybe it is time to resurrect such a story for a new generation of young adults and other youngsters. It probably was good a idea to make Bruce less interactive being a ghost for the first attempt at a virtual actor that will have a lot more screen time than usual and will have to stand up to a lot of scrutiny.




I just have hopes that this movie will do justice to Mr. Lee. Because of the way I was raised, my fathers respect and admiration for this great man was passed on to me. My father (being a young martial artist had met the man) impacted his life and he wanted to share that with is son. Even when I was a child Bruce had been gone to the world and my father it seems is doing just what this movie wants to do for a new generation. To keep the man alive my father raised me on Bruce's films and learned about much of his philosophies when I became old enough to understand them. If Bruce Lee's family is on-board them I guess I will have to go in objectively and hope for the best.




As for technology, I'm not worried whether they can create a really true to life image of Bruce. However, I hope that the limitations of using only his recorded voice does not detract from the possibilities of expressiveness in his avatar. I'm sure they have lots of content from his movies and reviews, but I think they should at least consider additional options for expressing the spoken word.




To at least consider other ways to bring the voice of Bruce back to life may enable to to deliver more. They could look for a voice actor who sounds like Bruce to deliver something new, make limited use of speech synthesis. Of course if these do not pan out, at least there was an attempt made to further enrich and bring new life in to the character by not limiting him to only what is past. The writers (with guidance from the family) might have a flexibility with these tools to express more of Bruce's philosophies in new words that of course remain true to the man.

Cheers

[Airflow]

I posted a little something about this on my blog, but if there's anyone out there than can do photoreal humans as well as ILM and WETA, it's DD. I'm probably a bit biased as well these days. :) Remember the scenes in Fight Club? Norton blowing his mouth open (albeit some of that was photography), the sex scene. In xXx, DD did Vin Diesels face and head for a couple stunt scenes with the motorbike.


I thought the head replacments in xxx were the worst visual effects in the film, due to the fact that the head did not look entirely like him.... grab any still and do a side by side comparison....
Fight Club was good, but I doubt it was photorealistic... and were talking about fully animated, speaking and emoting....
Sofar the closest I have aver seen has been achived by Ilm, A series of unfortunate events - the digital baby, though she never spoke, she was photoreal in my eyes...
Maybey they could pull it off, but I have major doubts about DD, Ill just have to keep my fingers crossed.
Maybey if they use some of that new facial capture technology, but creating eyelid wrinkles as they slide back under the fat of the lower brow, the fine creases in the eyeball surface displacing the liquid, propper internal sss reflecting and occluding off bone and muscle tissue, proper dynamic tension of the skin surface and the affected wrinkle patterning of the skin. I dont think anyone is currently dealing with these things....

[krazyrokr]

wow that is pretty insane, i cant wait to see how it turns out

[stdriver]

negative waves..... give this GGI guys a chance.
as long this digital movie will not insult or direspect bruce lee it will be ok.

i have some ideas for the script include some ghost demon from the past
see attached photos it very powerfull.

fear does not exist in this dojo.
pain does not exist in this dojo.
defeat does not exist in this dojo.
we do not train to be merciful here ,mercy is for the week.
a man that confront you is the enemy and the enemy deserve no mercy...

[stdriver]

http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/icons/icon6.gif.......... did not know that
Fist of Unicorn movie was directed by bruce lee in 1972
no He was only there doing action choreography
http://www.20th-centurywarriors.com/blvideo/unicornvideo.html

Best place for matraila art cover, trailer, images:
http://www.shaolinchamber.com/

Best place for bruce lee movies photo gallery articles etc:
http://www.20th-centurywarriors.com/


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhLt4KNYSkM)

[yaranizev]

Not crazy about resurecting dead folks the way they do it to sell Pepsi and cars. As far as being the first digital actor, does anyone besides me remember Final Fantasy (the movie) from 2001? No disrespect meant here; you folks can all draw and animate better than I ever could.

[davidwAde]

If you want to be taken seriously, don't substitute words for numbers.

Back in your hole....

[davidwAde]

And that's exactly why this should not be done. He did not consent. You can't use someone's image or persona unless they allow you, and since Bruce is dead, he obviously won't do that. You know that business about being considered innocent until proven guilty? It's the same thing. If they didn't actively say yes, you have to assume they said no.

I'm pretty sure he could of made the choice not to be an action star, and keep his image, it's kinda the price you pay for fame, unfortunetly.

[stdriver]

yes bruce paid a big price "his life" for his fame , he is still the greatest and no one can beat him ,his body perfection and energy etc and moves no one can get close to him.

one question has this movie called "Rage & Fury (2008)" on
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0883381/
anything comen with this digital movie?

[stdriver]

Some news , Bruce lee Enter the dragon movie will be remade in a new version
by film company Warner Brothers.

The new name for this film will be "Awaken the dragon" and the director is Kurt Sutter
Who will play the new role is unknowen yet.

Awaken the Dragon (2009)
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt1085365/

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.