Deepfaking Tarkin & Leia in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story [4K] 

haha, same

Up to here Rian Johnsonn has been able to subvert your expectations!

"What is it they've given us?" Turns around with Tarkin's face... "His achievement"

Needs to happen in the next video!

Now I want to see a Star Wars deepfake with everyone's face swapped.

Reminds me of Advanced Warfare cutscenes

@@tambourland Lol true Kevin Spacey

It looks much better than the deepfake

I wonder why that is? The uncanny valley is pronounced (and criticized) in a movie, but it’s forgivable in a game.... Is it just because they tried to mix a digital character with real actors that draws attention to the digitized model? In any case, the DFs are quite a bit better.. if they ever had to try and replicate characters from decades ago in a new movie I think it would suffice a lot better.

@@elias7748 Not even remotely, it looks like mediocre cgi. The deepfake makes him actually look human. (Though the body still looks like "meh" cgi)

He got hired by the OG? That's insane!

John Lime yes!!

Call me cynical but part of the reason for his hiring had to be to stop him from making them look foolish by posting videos like this…

@@PatTheBatmanFan are you kidding me?? why not appreciate his work...They are amazing!

@@BlooGoose didn’t say it wasn’t. Pretty smart of them to hire him. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong though.

Yeah. The only problem with the new Tarkin is that it's still relying on the movement of the original. If you pause, he looks perfect, but when he moves his head or talks, it doesn't look great.

Almost perfect. When she turns, there's a weird shadow glitch.

Still an overall issue with her lack of head or facial movement, and weird stare without blink. But that would have to be reworked form scratch. Definitely a total improvement.

@@osrevad it gets rid of some of the expression

Tarkin is worse than the film. Snapchat does better deep fake than his Tarkin lmao

Shhhh he's just sweating

@@dylpickle0927 😂 😂 😂

lighting organic things is super difficult to pull off in CGI, especially faces. Overall I think it's still pretty impressive.

@@IrateWizrd While impressive, it still fell short. I would've preferred if they just hired an actor like Charles Dance to reprise the role.

@@TyrDrum I agree that it falls short, but I think casting a different actor would be even more jarring than the problems with cgi, especially since it came so close. If they had someone do motion capture as a reference for the movements I think it would've helped though, since some of his facial movements and body language are a bit unnatural with no reference.c

Yeah, I actually think the original Tarkin looks better in the comparison shots.

The problem is the deepfake is getting its info from the movies cgi animation. so movement still looks animated rather than real. It went from lookalike face double to cgi to deepfake... so natural movement was lost.

If you think about it, the original version is a type of Deep Fake, only using Cushing's likeness rather than actual existing footage and Guy Henry's on set performance capture. Deep Fake just takes references from Cushing's real performances in other movies and TV shows he did at the time (getting as many angles of his face as possible), mimicking it as close as possible to the CGI version.

Yea. The problem with Tarkin was not as much his facial features that looked off but the way his lips move. The deepfake does not fix that, as it's still using the same animation as reference. The deepfake looks waaay better when you look at single frames though.

@@flecks_piano - Yeah the deepfake overall had a more realistic look to it unlike the CGI which still has a fairly strong uncanny valley effect. But as you all say the animations are all off for both really... one is over animated and the other is under animated and stiff.

Considering that George Lucas would go back and fix some of the special effects of the past - I would say yes. I love practice effects over CGI myself but the "deep-fake" tech is so close to spot-on.

@@NPC-bs3pm Other changes for the Special Edition? Get rid of the harcoded translation subtitles for the alien languages (similar to how the Original Trilogy and Prequel Trilogy and Solo were rip-able without the subtitles) whenever Saw’s alien lieutenant talks, and add transition wipes to certain scenes (like from Kremnic on Mustafar to Yavin IV).

This is all def gonna happen. The small eye jittering makes it. Now if the lips get sorted for DF tech it’ll be insane

I do hope they eventually do that for the Mandalorian S2 finale aswell. I don't mind it terribly much, but i'm sure with all the original footage, ILM can do an absolutely amazing job in a few years time.

Unlike the Special Editions, i'd be very much in favor of this, because it is practically just an upgrade to already "animated" characters.

If they use the actor for Scorpius from farscape like they did before for Tarkin, they'd have an excellent start for their deepfake. He's got the physicality for the part, and good facial structure and can sound just like Tarkin. One hopes they just improve from here.

My thoughts exactly, the animation is failing because is based on the 3D and not a humen

The big problem for me is the eyes. You need a human actor. Think Gollum or Alita. If they want to resurrect Peter Cushing’s Tarkin, use someone whose appearance and bearing is close - say, Charles Dance from GoT.

@@Canadarago What is lacking in the 'modern' Tarkin is the performance. Cushing had a frailty about him near the end of his life that is completely missing in the performance. There was a hint of fear or nervousness that brought his real performance to life.

I came from the future & I am gonna say: Boba Fett Ep 6 !!

Right? The original CG Tarkin looks ANCIENT, his eyebags are all red and puffy. Peter Cushing's face never looked that rough. The CG looks like those pictures of Prince Philip

@@diegolomac there's no life behind the eyes and it makes the whole model look like a videogame cutscene. i don't care how detailed the model is - it doesn't look like a real person. even when deepfakes fuck up the eyes and where they're looking, they still look alive.

The trend I see with these deep fakes is that matte eyes look more realistic than the 4K perfectly reflected eyeballs they try to generate in CG

Agreed. Even though deep fake looks way better there’s still something about the eyes that makes it look fake but still better than full CGI

I actually think the deepfake looks convincing in this scene. If you didn't tell me that wasn't really Cushing I wouldn't know. The textures are much better but it's actually fixed the animation here too, the facial motions are much more subtle in the deepfake.

Every Leia I've seen before today was iffy at best. This one, for a moment, my brain forgot it wasn't real footage of Carrie Fisher.

You can even see small wrinkles and freckles.

Yeah! beautiful Leia!

Agree it was able to trick my mind 100% watching it. Soon well have her selling vacuums don't you worry.

Except that little flickering when applying the mask at the beginning I completely agree. Imagine the thousands of dollars and hours they spent for the original result. I guess the number of vfx personnel we see during the credits of a movie will decline dramatically.

It's not just that, the skin on the original Tarkin is almost so overly detailed it's almost distracting.

This is just...wrong? The deepfake eyes barely move and thus look dead a lot of the time.

I dont agree. Leia has few texture-flickering, espescially in the beginning of her deepfake. Tarkin is a very small improvement. There are scenes in this video, where the original looks actually better - and scenes where the deepfake looks better (overall its a small improvement on the deepfake-side). Leia is a big improvement, but, like i said in the beginning: not perfection as you said. Perfection for me is: without texture-flickering.

that's what I thought as well

Yep. Too many overly contrasting highlights and deep shadows. We appreciate all the time spent on every little wrinkle, but they are demonstrated too prominently in the original footage. The Leia looks much better here.

I agree. I don't understand why they made his skin so veiny and transparent, especially around the eyes. It's almost like it's TOO detailed. the deepfake strikes a very nice balance. The original was already expressive enough, but it was just a little too cartoony

It's not a fair conclusion. Deep fake looks a bit more real because its the real actor's face. It's kinda a 2d replacement so details are missing. Check 1:32 the eyebrow in deepfake doesn't have details, no reflection on eyeballs and the whole face is flat and too smooth.

the contrast is also a problem because last time we say tarkin in the first movie it was all evenly lit in every scene we see him in. hes going to look nothing like how people remember just from that.

The eyes Chico. They never lie

ORDAH

You hit the nail on the head.

Exactly. Notice the color of tarkin's eyes in the deepfake, how much the blue in his eyes pops. But in the CGI its dulled out with the rest of the eye

Absolutely

Disney did? When?!

@@janeydoe7417 yes they did. He did Luke's face in book of boba fett

@@junjunsay93 Is there a link to this announcement?

@@julius6889 You can find news from 2021. They hired Shamook after he improved the Luke deepfake in the Mandalorian s2 finale and you can see the result in the Luke episode of Book of Boba Fett. It's like night and day compared to the season 2 finale.

The Leia (“the" leia?) looks absolutely spot on now. Quite frightening. Almost as frightening as the sensation that I’m writing to Stephen Fry dressed up as the Quaker Oats guy...

Dude, you crushed it. This is how it should have been released. Much more realistic.

Excellent job, my only complaint is that you should have let the music play here 😂 0:45

We’re going to need the raw video files for these to make new edits of Rogue One lmaoo

Your first Leia was great, but THIS? My friend you crushed it. Bravo... also I have been waiting for you to do this one for so long. Extremely well done.

could always deepfake Tarkin over Guy Henry since Guy looks just like Peter Cushing and was the actor on set as well as the voice

But it has human expression to work with, because there are motion captured actors underneath the CGI deceased characters. ..

Wow it's almost like I said that

Wow it's almost like I said that

@@GoldenPickaxe You said they could. They said they did.

Best reaction. The actual mapping of the face is perfect - it's just that the animation is not altered in any way which makes it look like there is almost no difference except the skintones.

Exactly. I've noticed that for all CGI effects. We might integrate them perfectly into a shot and the lighting and texture effects can be indistinguishable from a real one , but the biggest issue for years has been the animation. That seems to be the thing that has stagnated the most over the years. They might improved it a bit with the addition of some muscle and fat simulation on top, but it still obvious that it's not the muscles and gravity that dictate the movement seen, but hand animated bones with overlaid muscles that are just programmed to contract at a certain time.

Agreed. The best approach here would be to get a good actor that looks/sounds a lot like Peter Cushing, have them do the whole scene, and then deep fake that. The tech is honestly at the point where you'll come up with a better result than CGI, especially if you use the money/computational resources/time of a Hollywood studio. I can't see this not being used in a major production once everything in the current production pipeline has been pushed through.

Exactly my thoughts. It's really frustrating when they don't even use the mocap from the actor, only as a reference for the animators. Is it any footage from the original actor without CG? it would be interesting to see the result when the deepfake is aplied directly.

Yeah. I think one of the movies that did it best was Terminator Genisys recreating the 1984 scenes from the original. Since the T-800 is not really expressive, it feels way more natural.

I just realized Eleven from stranger things would make an awesome Leia prequel maybe of her growing up in Alderaan.

@@jw7268 Vivien Lyra Blair has been cast in that role for the Kenobi series

Agreed.

Yeah that's what I thought, but I really liked Tarkin in CGI form, at times one is better then the other so this one is pretty balanced, the Deep Fake makes him look less CGI'ed and a little bit more real, however his eyes don't seem. right to me with the light reflection and Deep fakes sadly have a moving issue around the sides as if it's trying to move onto the actors face. Where as the CGI build around the actors face dosen't have that issue as it moves more naturally and it has more accurate skin detail making him look more aged. The CGI also has its own lighting issues, I guess they both give him more definition in different areas. Still I think they did a really good job with him, considering they could not scan the original actors face for CGI and had to build his face from scratch. must lastly say however, I think the deep fakes we are seeing produced here though are better then the ones they are using currently for the film industry. Luke Skywalker face still didn't look right in the Mandalorian despite it being awesome to have him in it, and the deep fake against the original one used is probably better to some degree in that other video. Hopefully they can improve for next time, so it's even better if they bring him back for another appearance. I think the best example of the Deep fake improving a CGI characters though would be the Deep Fake over the CGI Scanned face of Jeff bridges for his Tron Legacy Character Clu. Its actually very very good, and makes Clu look like Jeff bridges if he was younger and we were filming him with current Cameras of this era. Clu dosen't look so CGI'ed anymore and actually looks real, the only real issue is the Deep fake, face movement shuddering around the sides that Deep fakes seem to have. But other then that I really think that is the way to go, make a CGI scan of the actors face, then use deep fake if you can if it improves the character or actors face you are trying depict so it dosen't look like it was made by a computer. Just try and make sure that the movement is right on the actor, you want it to be seemless so you can't tell that there is a Deep fake effect being applied over the face because of the movement shuddering on the sides is what ruins it all the most.

I think they have to mix both tehcniques, because light It is complicated and depending on the light the looks are more realistic and sometimes not and deepfake helps a lot

I couldn't agree more!

Yeah, they should use deepfake as a base, then tweek it in post production just to make it perfect

its her face so?

Seriously. If only they did one more pass on it for the film to make it look like this!

Almost - I think she lightly darts her head around too much.

This was probably way cheaper, too.

@@kilroy987 Yeah, the animation is off but the face itself looks pretty good. They're both still animated somewhat like CGI characters, especially where motion capture doesn't pick up- mainly the mouth. I just wana know why they brightened up and zoomed in on Leia so much in the original version, were they really that proud of that atrocity?

He was wearing slippers not flip flops

@@chrisklitou7573 those are the same

@@kylemichiels1467 no they not

@@kylemichiels1467 they're more like sandals than slippers

RIP Peter Cushing (1913-1994)

I never understood the complaints about it, to be honest. Leia never quite looked real to me, like it was rushed, but Tarkin was very well realised.

Agreed, the orignal Tarkin looked fine for the time, Leia looked terrible though. This deepfake is only slightly better.

Personally, I thought the CGI one looked better than the deepfake in a few of the shots here

People bashing it have absolutely zero idea how hard it is to render something like this. They did a great job, maybe the best they could as we are simply not that advanced to recreate a human face in a way for it to completely indistinguishable from reality. It's in the eyes I think, or maybe too much detail and shine, not sure

CGI Resurrection would never be as good as Mixing a "Suit" Actor , a Soundalike, and a Deepfake. Makes it less Uncanny.

My sister worked on Tarkin and I'm kinda contemplating sending it to her

@@MagicalSkyWizard ask her why they gave him that eye color

They still got paid. However, that’s probably the last gig they’ll get modeling and rigging a face like this when it can be done for the fraction of the cost with deepfake.

It was a few years ago, I'd imagine they knew that tech would become better and better in this field.

The original still looks much better than the deepfake

It's really pretty simple. First the technology didn't really exist. Second the process is pretty much automatic, you just need really good hardware. Seriously. No offense to the people who make these videos, but frankly every time someone compliments them they're making a little bit of an ass out of themselves. There is something of a third point. But it's too altruistic to be plausible. They have to pay somebody to do the job, most likely a whole team of people - a union probably. There was bit of hysteria around CGI when Jurassic Park was made, special FX houses were afraid they'd all be put out of work. Because "all you have to do is press a button and you have a dinosaur" that was not how it worked. These AI based techniques do make that plausible, and that's why it's silly to trash people who worked their asses off to give you something halfway decent, and were probably underpaid because they're not as precise as an actual computer.

@@futurestoryteller this, this, this.

It's also an iterative process: the original is done by a team on a budget, with other priorities to juggle, on a hard deadline of the release date. These Internet ones are improvements and refinements of the job that first team did, done at the individual's own pace. They're impressive, but they aren't worked up from scratch.

@@pouringlizards That deepfake/CGI studio on youtube did it from scratch and compared pure CGI to deepfake and they did so within a very limited timeframe of a weekend or so Your argument is invalid and irrelevant CGI is done via 3D modeling and 3D animation, deepfake uses a different technology to print someone's own imprint on someone else's using AI technology hence why its seemingly easier Ultimately deepfake is much better to portray a real human while CGI remains the only thing besides FX that can create things, its just not a good technology to portray humans because the technology is actually too accurate and therefore requires countless micro-adjustments to every single frame to do what deepfake can do with a single button and a few dozens of perfect reference pictures For someone who knows anything about 3D technology, its been known for many years already that CGI was likely never gonna be that technology for human portrayal and the creation of deepfake technology proved it Game studios spend millions of dollars and huge amounts of time and resources on game characters and their animations just to get animations as realistic and natural as possible and they STILL barely achieve anything and that right there should be your indicator about how CGI works and what it can and cannot actually do

They're adding a filter to something that already exists. They didn't create it from scratch.

The Leia in this video is awesome... my brain does not pick up any flaws at all. It really looks like her. The Tarkin is still off. I’m guessing Lucasfilm probably has millions invested in their own software, so they are sticking with it, even if it has a long way to go.

Still way ahead of the original

Leia looks fake

He looks on the brink of death, his face is all veiny

They used a 1984 lifecast of Peter Cushing to create the CG model. That's why he looked older.

Also in 77 Cushing wore heavy makeup as all actors had to underneath those massive stage lights on set. In the CG model, they seem to have forgotten makeup exists and it made him look even older.

Considering the story group can't decide on what color Saw Gerrera's eyes are, I'm not particularly shocked

Guy Henry has dark brown eyes, it was probably quite obvious in the comparisons shots between him and Peter Cushing so was an definite change they had to make.

They should have had a human lipsync along and deep fake them.

@@nathanieI they did, actually. Tarkin was played by Guy Henry, who has a similar facial structure and they layered the CGI over his performance.

Precisely. It's Tarkin's movement. The actual lighting, texture, and everything else was working.

>The actual CGI was great You must be blind. His face looks like it was made of rubber

@@user-eh5wb6lg9g do you even know the work behind that cgi model of the face? It looks fucking amazing

I actually prefer the original.

This comment is stupid.

@@naemek9675 Shhhh we all know what happened to Greedo when he tried to give Han some ‘chatback’

@@naemek9675 lmao go back to watching cinemasins with the real intellectuals then

That deepfake in the show was pretty damn rough. RU-vidrs are gonna have a heyday with that one.

@@wavestation9079 Okay I think people are racking on it a bit too much. Having only watched it twice I think they pulled it off pretty good. Here's the thing. When he first took his hood off I couldn't quite tell if he was CG, make up, a guy that just looked exactly like him, or a combination of all three. I hear it was a combination of CG and a guy that looked exactly like him. The moment where I think it finally hit me he was fake was the shot where he was holding Grogu and said "May the force be with you" to Mando. As a whole though I think they pulled it off pretty good. At least when he wasn't in close up. When he first entered, when he bent over to pick up Grogu, and when he was in the elevator. That's when he looked best. Also he kinda felt like a reverse Superman. With Supes his lips looked really off and the rest of him looked fine. With Luke his mouth looked good. But everything the nose up was a little off. Now I'm not a deepfake, VFX person, or anything like that, but I hear that two hardest things are the lips, and the eyes. With Luke his lips looked great, but his eyes could have been a bit better, particularly when he was in close up. Now all I guess that's left to do is rank him with all the other CG recreations of people's faces in recent movies: Best to Worst: 1. Samuel L. Jackson - Captain Marvel 2. Michelle Pfeiffer - Ant-Man and the Wasp 3. Robert Downey Jr. - Civil War. (Edit) 4. Kurt Russell - Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 5. Mark Hamil - Mandalorian 6. Michael Douglas - Ant-Man/Ant-Man and the Wasp/Endgame. (in that order) 7. Carrie Fisher - Rogue One 8. Lawrence Fishburne - Ant-Man and the Wasp 9. Mark Hamil - Rise of Skywalker 10. Johnny Depp - Dead Men Tell No Tales 11. Peter Cushing - Rogue One 12. Carrie Fisher - Rise of Skywalker 13. Henry Cavil - Justice League Yeah I'd say that's a good spot for him. With the Douglas in Ant-Man and the Wasp, and Endgame he just kept looking more and more fake. While the first Ant-Man definitely looked good and put it ahead of Leia in Rogue One. And with RDJ, he looked average, noting really wrong with him. While Luke's mouth up looked a little wrong.

@@wavestation9079 actually a lot didn't mind the roughness cause they were too excited about seeing him in the first place.

It's gonna happen for sure. I just really wish Disney would use some sort of deepfake like shown in this video, the next time they're trying to de-age or otherwise use a dead actor

@@gissneric I know i didn't. I was bawling my eyes out either way. But it would definitely have been nice to have better CGI. The work they did with the voice was pretty good though, except for like one word in there where it sounded like it glitched out or something

He was only 6 foot tall? Thats average.

@@Zombieshark420x Yeah, it’s the on set double that’s really tall for some reason

@@Zombieshark420x 6 foot isn’t average at all but yes it isn’t that tall

It’ll be a bit weird if he looks like Peter Cushing.

@@AaronAbernethy I like what you did there. :)

Nah we got Sebastian Stan for that

@@justanotherbluebelt2691 Sebastian Stan would kill it. He HAS to be hired!

Wait, are you from the future? Certainly wish *Luke* had looked way better or used Sebastian Stan as a reference; the final result with regards to CGI was very distracting.

The deepfake would have solved it, however the only source material we have is putting it over the cgi so the movements match, versus putting it over a humans actual face

It would be better if he could use the reference video with an real person

@@Smackindaface I don't think it would have solved it. Just looks a different kind of fake. The eyes for example are way to saturated

@@foemb443556 the deepfake looks MUCH better. the original is embarrassingly bad.

@@wholetyouinhere yea you say that but either way the original creator created a perfect model for the deep fake to be put on. You can't use deep fake without an already existing canvas. Yea the new one looks better but you gotta give the original team credit

and wait to get sued you mean?

@@g60force Negative, could easily count as fair use as the end result looks quite different than the original. Fan cuts are often safe depending.

if it was that simple. the problem with deepfake is that it requires massive GPU power

@@outerheaven2k7 dude, Disney doesn’t like it when people use any piece of Star Wars music, what makes you think they’d be all good with someone reposting the full movie with a teeny tiny change!?

@@tam2237 Have you not heard of the Despecialized Editions? Or The Phantom Edit? Or any of the fan edits over the years? Do you honestly believe Disney litigates every single free, privately distributed fan effort? the answer is no.

Your wish is his command. Checked it out yet?

@@mattjns I know! Fast work!

@@mattjns Did you actually see this comment and do it or did you just have it planned?

Luke Skywalker?

@@levitationproductions1428 Have what planned? Huh?

*"COKE"

As if millions of drug dealers suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Leia was a druggie? XD

@@g60force Actually, Carrie Fisher did have some serious substance abuse issues during and after Star Wars. One particular story is the scene in Empire Strikes Back before Han gets lowered into Carbonite. Leia says, "I love you." and Han replies, "I know." In the original script, Han was supposed to reply, "I love you too." But Carrie Fisher was so coked up that day that she kept messing up the scene over and over again. After the Umpteenth take when she finally got the line right, Harrison Ford was so frustrated that the shoot was taking so long that his reply went off script and he said, "I know." And they just went with that take.

@@g60force I dunno, but they found a pharmacy of illicit drugs in Fisher's bloodstream when she OD'd. Typical Hollywood bust-out.

Hi.... my enemy

we care more thats why

Why did I read that in Obi Wan's voice in my mind?)

I gotta admit you won't be in need of any deepfakes at least Master Kenobi!

Facial movements are by far the hardest thing to do in cg. The amount of complexity of the muscles and fat patterns is incredibly difficult to correctly portray, and what´s more, we are very good at recognizing faces, too good. How many times have you seen something like this done so well you can´t tell it´s cg? In 2016 Deepfake technologies were just arising, if at all, therefore the only way to pull something like this off was full cg imagery, and the few (very few) times it´s been done so well it´s not identifyable, it took months or even years of hard work. It´s not "shiashf im gonna push this button and it´ll be like hes alive on set smnfijabsfuiabds". Still, deepfakes are amazing, I give you that, but even when they were used in the mandalorian it wasn´t 100% believable. Cause it´s just that hard. So don´t trash on the people working on it cause it´s an almost impossible feat to pull off.

Nope.

Yes.

yeah isnt hilarious that a simple Deepfake is doing a better job then a super expensive CGI from Disney studios? lol

@@sylvainh2o pros and cons, the Deepfake is still obviously fake especially the lip syncing, it's quite distracting.

Don't worry, Disney will do that on their own. You will never be able to see any film how it was made - everything is just a work in progress, just like a modern video game.

Many thanks, governer.

A Special Edition? 😆

And yet they still continue to use this trashy, weak method (Mandalorian Season 2 finale....)

@@ComedyBros5 It was different, wasn't the same. In Rogue One they did a full-CG HEAD, but in Mando S2 they did a CG face on top of a real head with real hair. It was warped onto a face sculpt and looks really bad cuz either it wasnt mocapped or it was applied poorly.

@@TheRobloxianTacoLord Exactly. My statement still stands. Disney made the same mistake (recreating younger/passed away actors). The tech is out to create realistic looking versions of people, yet they continue to put out weak, B-level editing of the matter.

@@ComedyBros5 Yeah, I'm still confused as to why Hollywood is so scared to use deepfake AI. They think they are too good for it perhaps...it looked worse than tarkin and leia. lol...shouldve jsut taken high-res images of mark hamill and plastered them onto the actor instead of doing a cg face, yuck

You probably don't remember this comment but... The cgi world changes at an incredible pace; if someone did a four year degree on cgi the things they studied would be obsolete by the time they entered the workforce. This movie came out in 2014. Back then deepfakes were usually laughable at best. Two years ago as of writing this they became convincing but required a lot of rendering time. A year ago people could do deepfakes in real time (think v-tubers and that explosion). That's likely the huge reason why high-budget films/companies don't do this stuff yet. The Mandalorian was praised for having that green screen circle when the technology was possible by 2016 at the latest. The technology goes fast enough that the experienced filmmakers can't keep up, and/or are set in their ways enough to delay the technology.

Deepfake wasnt really a thing when this movie was made. It took a few months to surface.

@@HandleDisliker Rogue One came out in 2016.

@@r3mdh close enough :P