UFO Remakes

Griff commented:

>As they say, "if it feels wrong, it normally is". There is >something certainly distasteful, uncomfortable about >portraying someone after they have passed on, even if it >was with their or their families permission. It's bad >enough, sometimes upsetting and hard to watch a >deceased loved one in a photo or video, let a lone, have >newly created imagery, or even whole films.I feel for the >families of anyone who has a family member portrayed >on the big or little screen who has passed away. I know >quite a few people in the profession, and in some cases >seeing their own much younger persona replayed over >and over on Sky/satellite can be upsetting, almost >'rubbing in' the fact that they are no longer who or what >they used to be and able to portray, and knowing it will >go on and on seemingly forever.


I don't believe there is anything wrong with repeat viewings of a performer,who has passed away in a role for which they are well known.
It keeps their memory alive,earns money for their estate and reminds us how much better many of the older Films and TV Series actually where.I also maintain there is no moral question to address,and is widely and commonly accepted.I don't even think about it,and I am sure the vast majority of other people don't either.When I watch Ed Bishop,George Sewell and Michael Billington,its just not on my mind,although naturally I am saddened that they have left us.Yet I can bring them to life when ever I wish,and I treasure those moments.
Actors sell their image.This is part of the entertainment business.If they are going to be upset by seeing themselves when they were younger,its a very strange attitude to hold in fact its hypocritical,as they are quite happy to take the royalties in the interim years.Its a bit late to have second thoughts.Fortunately,as you say many have no problem with it at all.

and continued:

> this technology and 'virtual acting' WILL and IS going >to happen, it is starting to happen, and will change >entirely the potential role of actors on screen, even >possibly taking their 'power/bankability away'. The >possibility to have 'perfect people, and perfect >performances. This has been touched on in another >email, but it will happen, and probably "because there is >a lot of money involved" happen in the worst way. I >know for a fact, that at this moment, discussion are >going on to continue film sagas where the original actors >have become too old, and "youngen then up" and then >portray them maybe again and again... and WITH the >actors permission! The actor while they are alive will get >payments, and where appropriate marketing royalties, >as though they had played then role. This is happening >now. Some of the most popular big named episodic >films are going to get this treatment, where the actors are >too old and craggy to act in the films themselves. They >will get billing, and they will be on the big screen, BUT it >won't be them!
This is a kind of reverse argument.Actors quite willing to see themselves younger in a much more recent production,even though in reality they can no longer be cast in the part.Again as you say this is the obvious way to maintain an ongoing series or franchise,when the actors involved are past their best.This may even lead to post mortem contracts who knows.
It has to be said that,as long as it was well done,and I don't think any decent producer/director would accept it unless it were well done,the thought of seeing actors again in the roles that made them great is an irresisible concept.
This means of course that its a way to make retro Series and Movies.Use all the traditional film techniques,make it in the style of the time involved.Doing this will at least give it a head start in the authenticity stakes.The only very modern ingredient (because there is absolutely no other way of doing it) is the re-creation of the former actor.

I would have problems with deceased actors in modern stories,roles and settings,as this would be far to much of a jolt.They would be out of time and place.
And if I had to ask myself a quetion about this it would be,would I be prepared to alter anything in any of the UFO episodes to correct those faults everyone is familiar with.

My answer would be yes.In spite of enjoying the general plot of RITW for example,I always fast forward when it comes to that ridiculous scene of the replica control room in the underwater dome.I cringe everytime I see it.Goodness knows what they were thinking.It is also ridiculous that SHADO manages to destroy 50 UFO's with 3 interceptors and Sky One.I would also point out that this time make sure Waterman puts his helmet on.

Mark UK



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Didn't a cola company do a crude version of this for an ad?



Actually, how about using such techniques to reconstruct missing or
unfinished episodes (like all the stuff the BBC ditched)? You could get all
that you can find of the actors involved (film and audio), all the stills of
sets or set designs, any bits of the episodes that still exist, and the
scripts, and reassemble them by CGIing the missing bits and pieces and
splicing or synthesizing the speech.



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark
Davies
Sent: 28 June 2009 09:14
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] UFO Remakes








Griff commented:

>As they say, "if it feels wrong, it normally is". There is >something
certainly distasteful, uncomfortable about >portraying someone after they
have passed on, even if it >was with their or their families permission.
It's bad >enough, sometimes upsetting and hard to watch a >deceased loved
one in a photo or video, let a lone, have >newly created imagery, or even
whole films.I feel for the >families of anyone who has a family member
portrayed >on the big or little screen who has passed away. I know >quite a
few people in the profession, and in some cases >seeing their own much
younger persona replayed over >and over on Sky/satellite can be upsetting,
almost >'rubbing in' the fact that they are no longer who or what >they used
to be and able to portray, and knowing it will >go on and on seemingly
forever.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with repeat viewings of a
performer,who has passed away in a role for which they are well known.
It keeps their memory alive,earns money for their estate and reminds us how
much better many of the older Films and TV Series actually where.I also
maintain there is no moral question to address,and is widely and commonly
accepted.I don't even think about it,and I am sure the vast majority of
other people don't either.When I watch Ed Bishop,George Sewell and Michael
Billington,its just not on my mind,although naturally I am saddened that
they have left us.Yet I can bring them to life when ever I wish,and I
treasure those moments.
Actors sell their image.This is part of the entertainment business.If they
are going to be upset by seeing themselves when they were younger,its a very
strange attitude to hold in fact its hypocritical,as they are quite happy to
take the royalties in the interim years.Its a bit late to have second
thoughts.Fortunately,as you say many have no problem with it at all.

and continued:

> this technology and 'virtual acting' WILL and IS going >to happen, it is
starting to happen, and will change >entirely the potential role of actors
on screen, even >possibly taking their 'power/bankability away'. The
>possibility to have 'perfect people, and perfect >performances. This has
been touched on in another >email, but it will happen, and probably "because
there is >a lot of money involved" happen in the worst way. I >know for a
fact, that at this moment, discussion are >going on to continue film sagas
where the original actors >have become too old, and "youngen then up" and
then >portray them maybe again and again... and WITH the >actors permission!
The actor while they are alive will get >payments, and where appropriate
marketing royalties, >as though they had played then role. This is happening
>now. Some of the most popular big named episodic >films are going to get
this treatment, where the actors are >too old and craggy to act in the films
themselves. They >will get billing, and they will be on the big screen, BUT
it >won't be them!
This is a kind of reverse argument.Actors quite willing to see themselves
younger in a much more recent production,even though in reality they can no
longer be cast in the part.Again as you say this is the obvious way to
maintain an ongoing series or franchise,when the actors involved are past
their best.This may even lead to post mortem contracts who knows.
It has to be said that,as long as it was well done,and I don't think any
decent producer/director would accept it unless it were well done,the
thought of seeing actors again in the roles that made them great is an
irresisible concept.
This means of course that its a way to make retro Series and Movies.Use all
the traditional film techniques,make it in the style of the time
involved.Doing this will at least give it a head start in the authenticity
stakes.The only very modern ingredient (because there is absolutely no other
way of doing it) is the re-creation of the former actor.

I would have problems with deceased actors in modern stories,roles and
settings,as this would be far to much of a jolt.They would be out of time
and place.
And if I had to ask myself a quetion about this it would be,would I be
prepared to alter anything in any of the UFO episodes to correct those
faults everyone is familiar with.

My answer would be yes.In spite of enjoying the general plot of RITW for
example,I always fast forward when it comes to that ridiculous scene of the
replica control room in the underwater dome.I cringe everytime I see
it.Goodness knows what they were thinking.It is also ridiculous that SHADO
manages to destroy 50 UFO's with 3 interceptors and Sky One.I would also
point out that this time make sure Waterman puts his helmet on.

Mark UK


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I remember the Orville Redenbacher Popcorn commercial which was on a coupleyears ago.  The guy had been dead 10 years.
 
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2007-01-11-orville-usat_x.htm
 
Jeff

--- On Sat, 6/27/09, David Richards <[hidden email]> wrote:


From: David Richards <[hidden email]>
Subject: RE: [SHADO] UFO Remakes
To: [hidden email]
Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009, 11:49 PM








Didn't a cola company do a crude version of this for an ad?

Actually, how about using such techniques to reconstruct missing or
unfinished episodes (like all the stuff the BBC ditched)? You could get all
that you can find of the actors involved (film and audio), all the stills of
sets or set designs, any bits of the episodes that still exist, and the
scripts, and reassemble them by CGIing the missing bits and pieces and
splicing or synthesizing the speech.

From: SHADO@yahoogroups. com [mailto:SHADO@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Mark
Davies
Sent: 28 June 2009 09:14
To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com
Subject: [SHADO] UFO Remakes

Griff commented:

>As they say, "if it feels wrong, it normally is". There is >something
certainly distasteful, uncomfortable about >portraying someone after they
have passed on, even if it >was with their or their families permission.
It's bad >enough, sometimes upsetting and hard to watch a >deceased loved
one in a photo or video, let a lone, have >newly created imagery, or even
whole films.I feel for the >families of anyone who has a family member
portrayed >on the big or little screen who has passed away. I know >quite a
few people in the profession, and in some cases >seeing their own much
younger persona replayed over >and over on Sky/satellite can be upsetting,
almost >'rubbing in' the fact that they are no longer who or what >they used
to be and able to portray, and knowing it will >go on and on seemingly
forever.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with repeat viewings of a
performer,who has passed away in a role for which they are well known.
It keeps their memory alive,earns money for their estate and reminds us how
much better many of the older Films and TV Series actually where.I also
maintain there is no moral question to address,and is widely and commonly
accepted.I don't even think about it,and I am sure the vast majority of
other people don't either.When I watch Ed Bishop,George Sewell and Michael
Billington,its just not on my mind,although naturally I am saddened that
they have left us.Yet I can bring them to life when ever I wish,and I
treasure those moments.
Actors sell their image.This is part of the entertainment business.If they
are going to be upset by seeing themselves when they were younger,its a very
strange attitude to hold in fact its hypocritical, as they are quite happy to
take the royalties in the interim years.Its a bit late to have second
thoughts.Fortunatel y,as you say many have no problem with it at all.

and continued:

> this technology and 'virtual acting' WILL and IS going >to happen, it is
starting to happen, and will change >entirely the potential role of actors
on screen, even >possibly taking their 'power/bankability away'. The
>possibility to have 'perfect people, and perfect >performances. This has
been touched on in another >email, but it will happen, and probably "because
there is >a lot of money involved" happen in the worst way. I >know for a
fact, that at this moment, discussion are >going on to continue film sagas
where the original actors >have become too old, and "youngen then up" and
then >portray them maybe again and again... and WITH the >actors permission!
The actor while they are alive will get >payments, and where appropriate
marketing royalties, >as though they had played then role. This is happening
>now. Some of the most popular big named episodic >films are going to get
this treatment, where the actors are >too old and craggy to act in the films
themselves. They >will get billing, and they will be on the big screen, BUT
it >won't be them!
This is a kind of reverse argument.Actors quite willing to see themselves
younger in a much more recent production,even though in reality they can no
longer be cast in the part.Again as you say this is the obvious way to
maintain an ongoing series or franchise,when the actors involved are past
their best.This may even lead to post mortem contracts who knows.
It has to be said that,as long as it was well done,and I don't think any
decent producer/director would accept it unless it were well done,the
thought of seeing actors again in the roles that made them great is an
irresisible concept.
This means of course that its a way to make retro Series and Movies.Use all
the traditional film techniques,make it in the style of the time
involved.Doing this will at least give it a head start in the authenticity
stakes.The only very modern ingredient (because there is absolutely no other
way of doing it) is the re-creation of the former actor.

I would have problems with deceased actors in modern stories,roles and
settings,as this would be far to much of a jolt.They would be out of time
and place.
And if I had to ask myself a quetion about this it would be,would I be
prepared to alter anything in any of the UFO episodes to correct those
faults everyone is familiar with.

My answer would be yes.In spite of enjoying the general plot of RITW for
example,I always fast forward when it comes to that ridiculous scene of the
replica control room in the underwater dome.I cringe everytime I see
it.Goodness knows what they were thinking.It is also ridiculous that SHADO
manages to destroy 50 UFO's with 3 interceptors and Sky One.I would also
point out that this time make sure Waterman puts his helmet on.

Mark UK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Two things to comment about reconstructing things using, or not using CGI.

There is a Simpsons episode where Millhouse gets picked to act in a superhero movie, playing radioactive boy. At one point he runs away, they decided to use other scenes to finish the movie without him. Shows how funny this could be :)

A number of years ago, actor Vic Morrow, along with two children were killed when a helicopter crashed on them. This was for Twilight Zone the movie. Most of his scenes were filmed, but not all, so they edited the movie to show the ending of his little part ended differently then originally planned.

Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: David Richards
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:49 AM
Subject: RE: [SHADO] UFO Remakes





Didn't a cola company do a crude version of this for an ad?

Actually, how about using such techniques to reconstruct missing or
unfinished episodes (like all the stuff the BBC ditched)? You could get all
that you can find of the actors involved (film and audio), all the stills of
sets or set designs, any bits of the episodes that still exist, and the
scripts, and reassemble them by CGIing the missing bits and pieces and
splicing or synthesizing the speech.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mark
Davies
Sent: 28 June 2009 09:14
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [SHADO] UFO Remakes

Griff commented:

>As they say, "if it feels wrong, it normally is". There is >something
certainly distasteful, uncomfortable about >portraying someone after they
have passed on, even if it >was with their or their families permission.
It's bad >enough, sometimes upsetting and hard to watch a >deceased loved
one in a photo or video, let a lone, have >newly created imagery, or even
whole films.I feel for the >families of anyone who has a family member
portrayed >on the big or little screen who has passed away. I know >quite a
few people in the profession, and in some cases >seeing their own much
younger persona replayed over >and over on Sky/satellite can be upsetting,
almost >'rubbing in' the fact that they are no longer who or what >they used
to be and able to portray, and knowing it will >go on and on seemingly
forever.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with repeat viewings of a
performer,who has passed away in a role for which they are well known.
It keeps their memory alive,earns money for their estate and reminds us how
much better many of the older Films and TV Series actually where.I also
maintain there is no moral question to address,and is widely and commonly
accepted.I don't even think about it,and I am sure the vast majority of
other people don't either.When I watch Ed Bishop,George Sewell and Michael
Billington,its just not on my mind,although naturally I am saddened that
they have left us.Yet I can bring them to life when ever I wish,and I
treasure those moments.
Actors sell their image.This is part of the entertainment business.If they
are going to be upset by seeing themselves when they were younger,its a very
strange attitude to hold in fact its hypocritical,as they are quite happy to
take the royalties in the interim years.Its a bit late to have second
thoughts.Fortunately,as you say many have no problem with it at all.

and continued:

> this technology and 'virtual acting' WILL and IS going >to happen, it is
starting to happen, and will change >entirely the potential role of actors
on screen, even >possibly taking their 'power/bankability away'. The
>possibility to have 'perfect people, and perfect >performances. This has
been touched on in another >email, but it will happen, and probably "because
there is >a lot of money involved" happen in the worst way. I >know for a
fact, that at this moment, discussion are >going on to continue film sagas
where the original actors >have become too old, and "youngen then up" and
then >portray them maybe again and again... and WITH the >actors permission!
The actor while they are alive will get >payments, and where appropriate
marketing royalties, >as though they had played then role. This is happening
>now. Some of the most popular big named episodic >films are going to get
this treatment, where the actors are >too old and craggy to act in the films
themselves. They >will get billing, and they will be on the big screen, BUT
it >won't be them!
This is a kind of reverse argument.Actors quite willing to see themselves
younger in a much more recent production,even though in reality they can no
longer be cast in the part.Again as you say this is the obvious way to
maintain an ongoing series or franchise,when the actors involved are past
their best.This may even lead to post mortem contracts who knows.
It has to be said that,as long as it was well done,and I don't think any
decent producer/director would accept it unless it were well done,the
thought of seeing actors again in the roles that made them great is an
irresisible concept.
This means of course that its a way to make retro Series and Movies.Use all
the traditional film techniques,make it in the style of the time
involved.Doing this will at least give it a head start in the authenticity
stakes.The only very modern ingredient (because there is absolutely no other
way of doing it) is the re-creation of the former actor.

I would have problems with deceased actors in modern stories,roles and
settings,as this would be far to much of a jolt.They would be out of time
and place.
And if I had to ask myself a quetion about this it would be,would I be
prepared to alter anything in any of the UFO episodes to correct those
faults everyone is familiar with.

My answer would be yes.In spite of enjoying the general plot of RITW for
example,I always fast forward when it comes to that ridiculous scene of the
replica control room in the underwater dome.I cringe everytime I see
it.Goodness knows what they were thinking.It is also ridiculous that SHADO
manages to destroy 50 UFO's with 3 interceptors and Sky One.I would also
point out that this time make sure Waterman puts his helmet on.

Mark UK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In the movie "Gladiator", there are a couple of brief shots of Oliver Reed,who passed away before filming was completed, that were composited from other shots, so they could complete his scenes.
Brian C.

--- On Sun, 6/28/09, Bruce Sherman <[hidden email]> wrote:


From: Bruce Sherman <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO Remakes
To: [hidden email]
Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009, 7:00 PM








Two things to comment about reconstructing things using, or not using CGI.

There is a Simpsons episode where Millhouse gets picked to act in a superhero movie, playing radioactive boy. At one point he runs away, they decided to use other scenes to finish the movie without him. Shows how funny this could be :)

A number of years ago, actor Vic Morrow, along with two children were killed when a helicopter crashed on them. This was for Twilight Zone the movie. Most of his scenes were filmed, but not all, so they edited the movie to show the ending of his little part ended differently then originally planned.

Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: David Richards
To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:49 AM
Subject: RE: [SHADO] UFO Remakes

Didn't a cola company do a crude version of this for an ad?

Actually, how about using such techniques to reconstruct missing or
unfinished episodes (like all the stuff the BBC ditched)? You could get all
that you can find of the actors involved (film and audio), all the stills of
sets or set designs, any bits of the episodes that still exist, and the
scripts, and reassemble them by CGIing the missing bits and pieces and
splicing or synthesizing the speech.

From: SHADO@yahoogroups. com [mailto:SHADO@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Mark
Davies
Sent: 28 June 2009 09:14
To: SHADO@yahoogroups. com
Subject: [SHADO] UFO Remakes

Griff commented:

>As they say, "if it feels wrong, it normally is". There is >something
certainly distasteful, uncomfortable about >portraying someone after they
have passed on, even if it >was with their or their families permission.
It's bad >enough, sometimes upsetting and hard to watch a >deceased loved
one in a photo or video, let a lone, have >newly created imagery, or even
whole films.I feel for the >families of anyone who has a family member
portrayed >on the big or little screen who has passed away. I know >quite a
few people in the profession, and in some cases >seeing their own much
younger persona replayed over >and over on Sky/satellite can be upsetting,
almost >'rubbing in' the fact that they are no longer who or what >they used
to be and able to portray, and knowing it will >go on and on seemingly
forever.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with repeat viewings of a
performer,who has passed away in a role for which they are well known.
It keeps their memory alive,earns money for their estate and reminds us how
much better many of the older Films and TV Series actually where.I also
maintain there is no moral question to address,and is widely and commonly
accepted.I don't even think about it,and I am sure the vast majority of
other people don't either.When I watch Ed Bishop,George Sewell and Michael
Billington,its just not on my mind,although naturally I am saddened that
they have left us.Yet I can bring them to life when ever I wish,and I
treasure those moments.
Actors sell their image.This is part of the entertainment business.If they
are going to be upset by seeing themselves when they were younger,its a very
strange attitude to hold in fact its hypocritical, as they are quite happy to
take the royalties in the interim years.Its a bit late to have second
thoughts.Fortunatel y,as you say many have no problem with it at all.

and continued:

> this technology and 'virtual acting' WILL and IS going >to happen, it is
starting to happen, and will change >entirely the potential role of actors
on screen, even >possibly taking their 'power/bankability away'. The
>possibility to have 'perfect people, and perfect >performances. This has
been touched on in another >email, but it will happen, and probably "because
there is >a lot of money involved" happen in the worst way. I >know for a
fact, that at this moment, discussion are >going on to continue film sagas
where the original actors >have become too old, and "youngen then up" and
then >portray them maybe again and again... and WITH the >actors permission!
The actor while they are alive will get >payments, and where appropriate
marketing royalties, >as though they had played then role. This is happening
>now. Some of the most popular big named episodic >films are going to get
this treatment, where the actors are >too old and craggy to act in the films
themselves. They >will get billing, and they will be on the big screen, BUT
it >won't be them!
This is a kind of reverse argument.Actors quite willing to see themselves
younger in a much more recent production,even though in reality they can no
longer be cast in the part.Again as you say this is the obvious way to
maintain an ongoing series or franchise,when the actors involved are past
their best.This may even lead to post mortem contracts who knows.
It has to be said that,as long as it was well done,and I don't think any
decent producer/director would accept it unless it were well done,the
thought of seeing actors again in the roles that made them great is an
irresisible concept.
This means of course that its a way to make retro Series and Movies.Use all
the traditional film techniques,make it in the style of the time
involved.Doing this will at least give it a head start in the authenticity
stakes.The only very modern ingredient (because there is absolutely no other
way of doing it) is the re-creation of the former actor.

I would have problems with deceased actors in modern stories,roles and
settings,as this would be far to much of a jolt.They would be out of time
and place.
And if I had to ask myself a quetion about this it would be,would I be
prepared to alter anything in any of the UFO episodes to correct those
faults everyone is familiar with.

My answer would be yes.In spite of enjoying the general plot of RITW for
example,I always fast forward when it comes to that ridiculous scene of the
replica control room in the underwater dome.I cringe everytime I see
it.Goodness knows what they were thinking.It is also ridiculous that SHADO
manages to destroy 50 UFO's with 3 interceptors and Sky One.I would also
point out that this time make sure Waterman puts his helmet on.

Mark UK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]