James Earl Jones Retires As Vader’s Voice

[Tommy]

It's all over social medias as well. One "news" outlet runs a story and everybody else copy/paste it.

What especially frustrates me is the part they've all just wildly assumed. The ONLY cited basis for all of these headlines "Jones Signs Over Rights To Voice Of Darth Vader" is a single line in the originating Vanity Fair piece:

"When he ultimately presented Jones with Respeecher’s work, the actor signed off on using his archival voice recordings to keep Vader alive and vital even by artificial means [...]"

Does “signed off on” mean he physically and officially signed over actual rights, or just that he gave informal approval for a process Disney already had the power to do? It's impossible to say based on the VF article alone, especially since it doesn't even contain the word "rights."

I'm not enormously knowledgeable in legal matters, but I’m skeptical of the assumption that Disney would have been powerless to do this without JEJ’s permission. Since Darth Vader’s voice is a heavily modified and embellished composite, I’d have thought that Lucasfilm already essentially owned it. If Disney was instead recreating JEJ’s natural voice from Field of Dreams, for instance, then I could maybe see this situation; I’m not convinced it’s so cut-and-dried with Vader.

But in any case, apparently “OMG Famous Guy JUST Did Official Thing [except it happened over a year ago and may have just been a figure of speech]” is a more eye-catching headline than: “Darth Vader’s Voice Programmed From Makeshift Bomb Shelters Under Threat of Russian Missile Attack.”

I obviously don’t understand journalism.

 

[Gregatron]

And here we have another instructive little moment to ponder, not unlike what we’ve seen with the modern STAR TREK fans who have been cultivated by that other dead franchise’s current, grotesquely incompetent stewards.

When someone articulately voices their displeasure with the direction of the franchise, the consistent kneejerk response is insecurity and mockery from those who disagree. No respectful discussion or rebuttal, and no agreeing to disagree. Instead, an insipid laughing emoji. Contemptuous mockery.

This is the mindset that Disney/Lucasfilm both caters to and cultivates. And it’s the antithesis of what STAR WARS used to stand for. Keep that in mind.

 

[JoeG]

Gregatron it's probably just me, but your posts come off as if they were written by Admiral Motti.

 

[JediMichael]

Well, remember this is Yahoo News…we must adjust our standards accordingly.

Just saw this article from facebook, but not sure where originally, but it was talking about the movie Goldeneye and how it came out in 1994.
I'm like, come on guys, how hard is it to google the date and NOT look so stupid.

 

[Tommy]

And here we have another instructive little moment to ponder, not unlike what we’ve seen with the modern STAR TREK fans who have been cultivated by that other dead franchise’s current, grotesquely incompetent stewards.

When someone articulately voices their displeasure with the direction of the franchise, the consistent kneejerk response is insecurity and mockery from those who disagree. No respectful discussion or rebuttal, and no agreeing to disagree. Instead, an insipid laughing emoji. Contemptuous mockery.

I genuinely mean no disrespect here, but to be fair, you may be coming across a bit stronger than you realize. When your position is that Disney definitively “murdered” Star Wars with pure greed and indecent, soulless content; that synthetic speech creation goes against the “natural order;” and that the Star Trek franchise is “dead,” I understand it’s heartfelt and passionate – and certainly articulate – but it also sounds a little over-the-top. I don’t doubt that you are indeed open to discussion and willing to have your mind changed; I’m just not sure your style of writing always conveys that impression.

Also, just for what it’s worth, you might be reading more into an emoji than is actually there. Maybe they liked your references to “a path to the dark side” or “the Mouse?” Personally, I always get a little chuckle when people use “the Mouse” or “Mickey” in place of Disney.

 

[blewis17]

The digital/AI/Deep Fake techs will permit some of us to hear the voices and see our family members that have passed away long ago...yes, I know; it sounds creepy for some and a good idea for others...to each its own as they say. It's a brave New World out there and, speaking of the Press/T.V./News in general, a road that'll prove difficult for us, the audience, to distinguish between the real and the fake

They did something similar for film critic Roger Ebert years ago when he lost his voice after multiple operations with jaw cancer.

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

I don’t doubt that you are indeed open to discussion and willing to have your mind changed

For more info on this check out this thread...Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

 

[batguy]

I don't see a theoretical difference between a fake AI voice versus a deepfaked video appearance. Or even a photoshopped image.

The advent of photography 150 years ago drew similar queasy reactions.

Next step: A program uses years writings & video & social media comments from a person, and builds an AI extrapolation of their personality. You could be having entire deepfaked conversations with AI versions of your dead relatives.

 

[modelcitizen]

that's exactly what some are working on right now. they call them Digital Ghosts.
so "ghosts" will be finally real in a certain point of view.

 

[Riceball]

Setting aside actors willfully signing over their voice “likenesses”, it just comes down to respect. Respect for the talent, respect for the craft, respect for history and the passage of time.

Using digital technology to keep actor likenesses and voices “alive” just so The Mouse can continue to nostalgia-milk them is both creepy and sad. Insert the appropriate Skynet/M5, “AI dystopia” reference here.

Despite man’s best efforts, nature is still a thing. The limited nature of life is what makes us appreciate it. STAR WARS used to be a limited thing—just a few movies. Beginning, middle, end. That was what made it special. A constant barrage of STAR WARS would have greatly lessened both its impact and the audience’s hunger for more. Oh, sure, you had the Expanded Universe, but that was its own thing, which you could ignore if desired. Voice actors would be brought in on occasion to play existing characters from the movies, but it was still its own thing.

Now, we continue to be bombarded by an endless glut of “content”, and The Mouse is more than happy to use every technological trick at its disposal to keep the money flowing and to exploit the likenesses (and now the voices) of the original actors.

On the one hand, it’s certainly tempting to be able to tell new stories with those existing characters/actors, freed of the constraints of time and aging, but, on the other hand, it’s unnatural and creepy and exploitive. Nothing can be allowed to end, nothing can be allowed to rest.

Having an actor’s likeness appear in a comic book, or a character performed by a voice actor doing an impression in a video game or radio show is one thing. Creating computer-generated golems is another. And the fact of the matter is that they’re not real. Sure, you can say that cinema is all about the art of illusion, and thus ALL fake, but essentially creating digital “actors” based upon real elements of real people, and who perform by the whims of a corporate committee, drains the art and humanity out of everything.


And I must also point out the hypocrisy of people who lambasted George Lucas for creating CG characters and using digital editing to splice different takes of scenes together, and yet will surely applaud this continued, creepy grave-robbing from The Mouse. Lucas never went so far as to remove the humanity and the artistry from his characters. Despite the accusations of being a control freak which have been lobbied against him, I could never see him using AI to voice a character, or using CG to recreate dead actors. Remember, when Tarkin appeared in ROTS, he was played by an actor in makeup made to resemble Peter Cushing, rather than creating a CG golem.

Recasting is one thing, but this is something else.

As if Lucas was so much better? The same Lucas that couldn't stop tinkering and fiddling with the 6 Star Wars movies he made? The Lucas that made extensive use of CG and green screen sets when filming the PT. That George Lucas? You don't seriously believe that he wouldn't do the same if he still owned Star Wars today? The man loves his tech and there is no way that he wouldn't use de-aging, face replacement, and now voice replacement tech if he were still making Star Wars movies.

 

[Tommy]

The man loves his tech and there is no way that he wouldn't use de-aging, face replacement, and now voice replacement tech if he were still making Star Wars movies.

While none of us can absolutely say one way or the other (unless he's voiced his opinion?), I would also put my money on Lucas enthusiastically using this technology, or just about anything on the cutting edge, if he was making movies today.

Granted, I personally don't have a big problem with it, but in any case, regarding Gregatron 's point about the use of an actor in makeup for Tarkin's brief cameo in ROTS, keep in mind that that was filmed 2003-2004. This wasn't long after our collective minds had just been blown by Gollum/Smeagol's groundbreaking life-like animation, and even that character benefited considerably from his non-human form, thereby minimizing the uncanny-valley. I'm not sure the scene would have benefited much from a perfect CG Tarkin since he wasn't shown in close-up, but even if Lucas had wanted to go that route, I'm inclined to think that the result would have been disappointing. A decade later, the one in Rogue One still suffered from the limits of the technology at the time. It really wasn't until the past few years that professional-level deepfakes have begun to approach truly-convincing human likeness.

Let's say instead that Lucas had wanted to include Tarkin in close-up speaking some dialog, and he had today's deepfake technology available at his fingertips: I have a hard time picturing him sticking with the actor in makeup.

 

[Master Boda]

I might remember wrong but I thought GL had said along the lines of wanting to use CGI “actors”.

 

[pengbuzz]

That's the scary part. If it gets too realistic, what's to say it isn't used for nefarious purposes like framing someone for a crime they didn't commit?

I have concerns over that one myself....

View attachment 1620247


And here we have another instructive little moment to ponder, not unlike what we’ve seen with the modern STAR TREK fans who have been cultivated by that other dead franchise’s current, grotesquely incompetent stewards.

When someone articulately voices their displeasure with the direction of the franchise, the consistent kneejerk response is insecurity and mockery from those who disagree. No respectful discussion or rebuttal, and no agreeing to disagree. Instead, an insipid laughing emoji. Contemptuous mockery.

This is the mindset that Disney/Lucasfilm both caters to and cultivates. And it’s the antithesis of what STAR WARS used to stand for. Keep that in mind.

Yeah; I learned emoji's aren't all that and that adblocker does a lovely job of making them disappear!

But to the point: I think one real reason they keep rehashing everything is that deep down, they know they don't have the creative chops of Lucas, Spielberg, Cameron, or any of the ones who originally came out with these franchises. Their best doesn't even tie the shoes of the former at their worst.

Case in point: before Star Wars; most sci-fi was "clean" and sleek/ streamlined (with a few exceptions such as 2001, Silent Running and the like). Nothing really showed much use on it per se. Lucas largely introduced us to a utilitarian, used, "lived-in" universe where parts break down, get damaged and scraped up. It also gave certain sensibilites of people who lived in this world, from the Empire and their strict "clamp-down" of an existence, to the backwaters of Tatooine where moisture farmers were simply trying to make a living eking water from the air.

But while the newer stuff in SW has kept to that motif, what have they really introduced that is groundbreaking? And for their creators, why keep going back to the same old franchises? Can they not build their own world and populate it with rules and settings therein?

So yeah, I'll probably get a "laughing" emoji for sure. But on the bright side....


...I'll NEVER see it.

 

[Riceball]

I don't see a theoretical difference between a fake AI voice versus a deepfaked video appearance. Or even a photoshopped image.

The advent of photography 150 years ago drew similar queasy reactions.

Next step: A program uses years writings & video & social media comments from a person, and builds an AI extrapolation of their personality. You could be having entire deepfaked conversations with AI versions of your dead relatives.

That was a plot for an episode of The Orville except that the person wasn't a relative, it was someone who left their phone in a time capsule in the present day. One of the characters, looking through pictures and texts in her phone took the phone to the Orville's answer to the holodeck and had the computer recreate her life based on everything in the phone.

 

[Tommy]

Next step: A program uses years writings & video & social media comments from a person, and builds an AI extrapolation of their personality. You could be having entire deepfaked conversations with AI versions of your dead relatives.

I only have a limited understanding of deepfakes, but it seems that the really convincing ones require an enormous variety of source imagery showing a full range of angles, expressions, and lighting, which likely wouldn't be available for a lot of our dead relatives. If you're a celebrity or otherwise have an exorbitant quantity of photos/videos publicly-accessible online, then maybe this is worth worrying about. If you're more average... I'd wonder how much risk you're really at (at least in the near-term).

But while the newer stuff in SW has kept to that motif, what have they really introduced that is groundbreaking? And for their creators, why keep going back to the same old franchises? Can they not build their own world and populate it with rules and settings therein?

While I appreciate where you're coming from, I feel like groundbreaking is a pretty high standard to expect from... well, just about anything.

In a small sense, though, I think most of us can at least agree on this:

 

[The Terminator]

This is honest journalism!




You mean like that type of journalism? Just tell facts? Don't rehash the same info and mix it in with false information and advertisements?

YES! Like OMG, totally LUV IT!!!11!

I might remember wrong but I thought GL had said along the lines of wanting to use CGI “actors”.

During the editing of Episode I. They showed that bit in the behind the scenes.
Which they did a bit for Episode II, CG Yoda and CG Obi-Wan.

 

[Tommy]

I might remember wrong but I thought GL had said along the lines of wanting to use CGI “actors”.

During the editing of Episode I. They showed that bit in the behind the scenes.
Which they did a bit for Episode II, CG Yoda and CG Obi-Wan.

I skimmed a couple of Ep. I clips and didn’t spot it – would be interested if anyone finds a quote. Every relevant Lucas statement I’m seeing comes from the production / promotion of Ep. II circa 2001-2002, when he did express reservations about CG human actors… but only in terms of technological limitations to conveying a human performance. This was notably before the debut of Gollum/Smeagol’s facial motion capture, let alone deepfakes.

“I don’t think I would ever use the computer to create a human character. It just doesn’t work. You need actors to do that.” (NY Times, July 2001)

“It’s like getting a performance out of a regular actor, it’s just it takes a lot longer to get there. That’s why – they’ll say ‘digital actors are gonna take over’ – I don’t think so. Somehow when they talk about digital actors, they don’t realize that [animators] exist.” (Puppets to Pixels, Ep. II doc.)

“Acting is a human endeavor and the amount of talent and craft that goes into it is massive - and can a composite reproduce that? […] The voice would have to be dubbed and what was produced on screen would ultimately be the work of an animator.” (BBC News, May 2002)

Lucas’s concern seemed to lie in a CG performance’s presumed reliance on tedious animation, without a human element as its basis. Yet as far as I’m aware, any deepfake requires an underlying performance for the AI to layer its mask over. It doesn’t entirely remove human actors from the equation. Granted, the synthetic voice process may be different; I don’t know if Respeecher starts with a reading, or if they work directly from text. We know JEJ didn’t provide a reading, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some actor recorded one as a guide for pace and inflection. Then again, whichever the case, I found the result reasonably convincing – and isn’t that what Lucas was going for?

So Gregatron has a point to the extent that reservations were expressed 20 years ago, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he would feel the same today.

 

[joberg]

The deepfake tech relies on an actor...not a bankable actor! Hence, the tech cuts cost on one side of the process: actor is paid scale (cheap) while the $$$ goes to the tech. Must be, somewhat, a good trade-off for the studios (in the near future when the tech will be cheaper to use/rent or license). Likeness of said bankable actor put on the face of the cheap actor might be a legal problem in the end.
I don't think Tom Cruise would like to see his deepfake in a movie in which he had no part, or no acting.
Bankable actors will be enjoying their retirements sooner, rather than later, because of legal contracts they'll have to negotiate with the studios/lawyers and getting either lump sums of money for each movie made with "them" and or royalties.

 

[Psab keel]

Just tell new stories with new characters. Is there so little imagination left that we can't possibly conceive of a story without Darth Vader? I really don't get it.

 

[Master Boda]

Just tell new stories with new characters. Is there so little imagination left that we can't possibly conceive of a story without Darth Vader? I really don't get it.

They can’t think of any thing original as that would be hard and require work.In this day and age one should be a mindless automaton that consumes and is a slave for the “hive”.