Michael Jackson To Unleash World Premiere Experience At Billboard Music Awards

[Birchey]

For starters, your first sentence made me lol, since you are not being exactly truthful. To be honest, you started this impersonator talk few days before BB awards, so you are kind of lying there. So it is not like after airing fans knew something wasn't right, you had this idea of impersonator before.

Can you too, point me to the article or video where estate and the people (who ever that might be) making claim this isn't impersonator?

Yeah and I was completely just to suggest they would use an Impersonator wasn't I? People started calling me out for even suggesting the idea, not once have I stepped in this thread with an "I told you so" but I was right. And my sentence is EXACTLY truthful, as not all fans feared they would use an impersonator, but once they saw it on their TV screens, they went to find the truth.

I am tired of posting factual links to stuff, maybe you or anyone else who seems to admire Valentino's efforts could do some research youself, I'll give you a hint ABC news.

 

[Pentum]

LOL @ people trying to claim the hologram stole moves\used moves of people who live off being someone else. You do know they do MJ routines on stage, right? By far I believe NO ONE who claims he 'helped' with the hologram. If they were told not to say anything then an "I can't talk about it" statement is not an option, either... So tired of those attention whores impersonator.

I'm glad Navi and E cas don't play like that and if the Estate used anyone it's gonna be them. Not that I believe they needed an actual "look alike" for this virtual MJ thing, they could've used anyone in the right sizes that can dance. I also believe the face look completly virtual, like a Fifa\GTA\Sims MJ character would look like, and not like an actual human being that tries to look like MJ. Naturally, it would look like a look alike, cause it's a virtual figure (a virtual look alike, and not the actual man) that mimics a person with unique, inimitable face & distinguish facial expression we can all picture with our eyes closed. There's still work to do with the face & moves, but I think the body (and hands) is almost perfect.

And I LOL@ you.

Okay, I will try to lay this all out very clear.

Since the airing of the performance, many fans knew something wasn't right, especially since the Estate and the people making this claim the thing isn't an Impersonator and that its a CGI Michael. Okau everyone who seems to be okay with the Estate and Pule's explantion have sat back and done nothing to research this, meanwhile on the crazy side of MJ fandom........................

Evidence to Suggest, it was a live shot of a body double with a "half" CGI/Photo composite face. Who was the Impersonator, people went and did some research

The Moves

Alot of fans especially those "2000 Watts" types and people who study Michael very closely knew from the second VMJ walked down those stairs it wasn't his dance moves, a little over a day later, someone found him.



Another video highlighting the movements.



Michael moved a specific way and no one on this planet could recreate that, but people who emulate Michael also have certain ways of performing moves and get into a habit of performing them their own way, the 2 videos above show Earnest Valentino was the Impersonator, we were lied too.

The Body

After people were claiming the body was full CGI, first thing I did was take a trip to some CGI forums online. Some people are saying who are we to be experts in this and that...........well lets see what actual CGI Experts think.

CGISociety Forum

"A "holographic" Michael Jackson appeared at the Billboard Music Awards a few days ago. It looks like a 3D animated head with a human dancer that's been projected onto a flat screen." - AJ -> CGI portfolio http://aj1.cgsociety.org/

"I just happened to switch over during a Cosmos commercial and saw this. Looked like what it was: a filmed dancer with a cgi face very poorly matched to the body."
"It didn't look so much CGI as it looked cobbled together from stills and re-animated, perhaps in 2D. And when I said the head was a poor match, it wasn't really the motion that was wrong, but the angle of the face to rest of the head/body that made it seem "off" - and the lighting was way off." - Richard Green -> CGI portfolio http://artbot.cgsociety.org/

"The quivering projection screen didn't bode well and when I saw the 3D MJ I had to try hard to suppress my laughter. It was pitiful, borderline offensive. I guess the fans who adored him were just so grateful to see "him" again that it didn't bother them." - Telemachus -> CGI portfolio http://www.nightfall-design.com/

There is no one who works on CGI that I have read that has even mentioned the possibility of the body being CGI. So no I am not an expert in CGI but I went out to find people who were. I didn't need to do this myself as a keen eye will take notice of the way fabrics move, shadows form.......and possibly at the start of the performance the female next to VMJ touches against his jacket sleeve, again showing this was filmed on set with the other dancers. The Body was real we were lied too.

The Face

Okay, following on from the above opinions that this was a poorly matched CGI/2d composite, its pretty clear after watching the video in HD, that this was a composite of 2d MJ pictures, with elements of Earnest Valentino's face left behind. The reason MJ looked a little off to some fans wasn't just because the likeness was off in places, but also because the likeness of MJ changes, they have used photos from Bad -> HIStory, meaning as Michaels head moves they change era's in his look. If you pause the video at some points you can even recognize the photos the 2D composite was taken from. Also as I posted above, they didn't even bother changing the impersonators face in some shots as I showed in these screencaps......

Anyone who has ever seen Earnest Valentino will tell you this is him. We were lied to.

A Few last Things

The clothing, Stylist: Michael Bush (Michael Jackson) why are they saying he designed the clothes for Michael Jackson, when its clearly not MJ? Anyhow we can see from the latest behind the scenes video this........



There is your impersonator, in EXACTLY the same design clothing as VMJ, except a different colour scheme. Obviously as VMJ performs a majority of the performance with a black background, it was not an option to wear a full black outfit, hence the colourful clothes. Earnest Valentino, on set, where are the motion tracking markers? no he is wearing real clothes, as the video we see from VMJ is simply him.

"The likeness of Michael was shot on a stage, then the face was digitally modified to match Michael as closely as possible. The extra lighting effects for the dancers flanking Michael to the left and right were all part of the ancillary lighting effects that made the projection pop."
http://www.arena3d.com/

One more important thing, in Damien Shields article he wrote this "Sources involved in the creation of this performance, all of whom signed strict non-disclosure agreements and therefor must remain unnamed, have confirmed this for me." I asked Damien about this, I trust him 100% and he has never ever lied to me in all the years I have known him.

The Future

Could they recreate a Michael Jackson performance? I will sidestep the argument about "Ghosts" and the motion capture as they may not have this and it might not be viable or cost effective to convert the 18 year old tracking into modern software. But they could create an almost realistic CGI model that moves like Michael, almost certainly. This could be done as simply as hand animation, similar to 2d Animation, placing tracking points on MJ, like his hands feet and knee joints, we have footage of Michael performing the same moves over and over again from almost every angle you could imagine, let alone what The Estate has at their fingertips. The face could have been easily recreated by laser scanning any of the hundreds of face casts Michael had lying around throughout the years, and even readily available on ebay, you could make your own.

Would this be easy? No, would it be worth it, is Michael Jackson worth it? Yes. I can tell you what we got was possibly the easiest, most cost effective and quickest way for them to create this illusion.

We don't have an Agenda, simply to know the truth behind all of this, which as we dig deeper is slowly being revealed. If you don't want to hear the truth, sidestep the posts, but in order to side with the BS we have been told you first need to rationalise all the above. Thank you

 

[InvincibleMJ]

And I LOL@ you.

Thank you. But you can't steal moves from someone whose whole show is your own moves. If this guy wasn't really a part of the *actual* hologram (and I believe he wasn't - he doesn't proportionally fit) why use moves from a video of "his" show and not a real Michael show? I mean WOW - Valentino does the MJ spin just like the MJ hologram, u got me there. It must be him. One more question - if they used someone as good as EV and just had fake MJ face on it, why is the hologram's moonwalk so lame?

And to be clear I think there's nothing wrong with rehearsing with a real dancer or even using a real one to create the illusion. That's how things are done. What I find fishy is someone making a statement like "I can't talk about it" or "I cannot confirm nor deny". Then don't release any statement, cause this one screams "I want you to think I'm involved".

 

[lom kit]

when you watch that performance, how do you watch?
i mean do you just see the person (VMJ) and think "ok...., moowalk sucked, dancing is avaredge, and so on. but i know its not real michael jackson, so what". basicaly do you just watch, or watch for details? Like the way the clothes move, how the head changes size and often way to streched neck, when its real MJ face, cgi or just Valentinos .

they are selling it as something, that isn't. totaly computer genarated Michael Jackson. something that never been done. which it isn't. its exaclty the same method as Tupac, just they had hard time to set the face/head because of the dancing.
i know when it comes to Micheal, always has to be over the top.
ok so be it, but when they realy did something new and inovative. and not selling it because they (THE ESTATE) think 99% of the people and especialy the fans have IQ of 90 and will buy everything as always.

 

[Birchey]

Thank you. But you can't steal moves from someone whose whole show is your own moves. If this guy wasn't really a part of the *actual* hologram (and I believe he wasn't - he doesn't proportionally fit) why use moves from a video of "his" show and not a real Michael show? I mean WOW - Valentino does the MJ spin just like the MJ hologram, u got me there. It must be him. One more question - if they used someone as good as EV and just had fake MJ face on it, why is the hologram's moonwalk so lame?

And to be clear I think there's nothing wrong with rehearsing with a real dancer or even using a real one to create the illusion. That's how things are done. What I find fishy is someone making a statement like "I can't talk about it" or "I cannot confirm nor deny". Then don't release any statement, cause this one screams "I want you to think I'm involved".

The moonwalk in the VMJ performance was timed to match the explosions, so the end few movements were quick and sharp. but watch EV do the moonwalk in his performances, they match the first few steps of the VMJ one, he doesn't do long strides. EV litterallty has a 0 in footwork, his sidewalk is really bad, same as VMJ, he can't do footwork, its actually quite sad watching him try to do the James Brown sort of footwork, you can see a little after he does the spin in the above videos. This is probably why the VMJ doesn't do some of the classic MJ foot moves.

 

[wendijane]

But with the Microsoft Kinect technology it will be possible to

Do you mean something like Milo?
Kinect (Project Natal) How long would something like that take do you think Jichael? Welcome to MJJC by the way

 

[Ramona122003]

Thank you. But you can't steal moves from someone whose whole show is your own moves. If this guy wasn't really a part of the *actual* hologram (and I believe he wasn't - he doesn't proportionally fit) why use moves from a video of "his" show and not a real Michael show? I mean WOW - Valentino does the MJ spin just like the MJ hologram, u got me there. It must be him. One more question - if they used someone as good as EV and just had fake MJ face on it, why is the hologram's moonwalk so lame?

And to be clear I think there's nothing wrong with rehearsing with a real dancer or even using a real one to create the illusion. That's how things are done. What I find fishy is someone making a statement like "I can't talk about it" or "I cannot confirm nor deny". Then don't release any statement, cause this one screams "I want you to think I'm involved".

That is actually a good point. If they did use an imposter, Valentino for the sake of argument, his performance is not going to exactly match some random video. Humans are not that constant. And, that moonwalk would had been better since Valentino does a better version than virtual Michael. Also, why Valentino specially chosen? Why did they use the more known Michael Jackson imposters? He seems so random. And if they just put a Michael head on a person, they could have used any trained dancer who knew Michael's movement and is about the same height instead of a known imposter. They are several dancers that does Michael's moves better than an imposter, so why even go looking for some look-alike imposter?

Really, I don't understand the line of thinking here.

 

[Birchey]

That is actually a good point. If they did use an imposter, Valentino for the sake of argument, his performance is not going to exactly match some random video. Humans are not that constant. And, that moonwalk would had been better since Valentino does a better version than virtual Michael. Also, why Valentino specially chosen? Why did they use the more known Michael Jackson imposters? He seems so random. And if they just put a Michael head on a person, they could have used any trained dancer who knew Michael's movement and is about the same height instead of a known imposter. They are several dancers that does Michael's moves better than an imposter, so why even go looking for some look-alike imposter?

Really, I don't understand the line of thinking here.

Are people just clutching at straws now, or do they really not understand how any of this works? The movements not match some random video? I could pick out 5 videos of MJ doing the same move and it will be almost identical, I think the main pointer in that EV video is the move he does at the end which Michael never used to do which EV does. People are not constant but when Impersonator or anyone in general dances and rehearses that dance they put their own touch on the movements.

The Moonwalk was timed to the explosions so it got quicker during the end., watch the first couple of strides, this is how EV does his moonwalk, short strides.

Why an Impersonator instead of a random trained dancer? Because Impersonators try to emulate Michaels every movements and study them as much as they can. it is already an impersonators job to try fool the audience, picking an popular impersonator because they are successful at what they do. Usually you pic the best guys for the job?

EV was picked because from certain angles he looks great as MJ, and his facial structure was easiet to match some of MJ's face too, infact like I posted they didn't even CGI/Composite his face in some shots. There are shots of pure EV, take a look at them and then watch some EV videos, tell me its not the same guy.

Don't let your eyes lie to you like this guy.

"We couldn’t ever imagine having an impersonator, or a tribute show, because no one’s Michael. That would just be unthinkable" - John Branca.

 

[ivy]

Could they recreate a Michael Jackson performance? I will sidestep the argument about "Ghosts" and the motion capture as they may not have this and it might not be viable or cost effective to convert the 18 year old tracking into modern software.

my understanding is that even the above is done/could be done, it would only move /do the Ghosts dance - in other words whatever was motioncaptured. So it is impossible to create a new performance from it. Am I wrong?

Would this be easy? No, would it be worth it, is Michael Jackson worth it? Yes. I can tell you what we got was possibly the easiest, most cost effective and quickest way for them to create this illusion.

This is what I mentioned previously in regards to limitations about technology, time, cost and how realistic and reasonable the fans are being (or not being). Can you give us an idea how much time, money will it take to do what you suggested? So that we can determine if that expectation is realistic or not?

For example we know that Tupac Hologram took longer than 4 months, costed around $800,000 to $1,000,000 and it was "the easiest to do" according to Pulse people and it had a body double and a voice double. Virtual MJ one took longer than 8 months and probably was more expensive as well - and Virtual MJ is nothing but an impersonator according to you. So in other words if it took 4+ months , cost around a 1 million dollars to make the easiest head while using doubles, how long will it take and how much will it cost to make the Michael you suggested - with no body doubles and such?

The reason I ask is because I wonder how realistic some expectations are. "Crazy side of MJ fandom" as you call it aren't always strong in rational or realistic approach to what's happening. For example while I wholeheartedly agree that this virtual MJ could have been and should have been better, if the approach you suggested would take years and years and require tens of millions of dollars, I know realistically it ain't happening. And as I mentioned before I wouldn't go crazy if some of the choices is because of the limitations (time, money, technology)

We don't have an Agenda, simply to know the truth behind all of this, which as we dig deeper is slowly being revealed. If you don't want to hear the truth, sidestep the posts, but in order to side with the BS we have been told you first need to rationalise all the above.

It's not "not wanting to hear the truth", it's how we approach to this situation. I tend to feel like some people had a lot higher expectations and/or hyped themselves up so much.

for example I saw people write "It's not Michael Jackson" and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Of course it isn't and I knew it wouldn't be him. And then we see a discussion about which approach would have been "real" MJ. None of them would be real. Even the hand animation etc that you suggest wouldn't be real. So as I don't see anything as real, I have no interest in proving it's not real. I already know that.

Similarly people had problems with this being billed as "Michael Jackson" and/or not being told about impersonator / body double and that's just not being realistic. A body and voice double had been billed as Tupac when it wasn't Tupac. David Copperfield was credited for making statue of Liberty disappear when it didn't go anywhere. So the "common sense" you mentioned before, should tell you of course they wouldn't be upfront in those regards. Yes I understand why an impersonator is a sore spot for some - and perhaps especially you- but this is apples an oranges.

This is an illusion , they want people to think it's Michael Jackson when it is not real or him (one way or another, regardless if it's CGI or impersonator). And as far as I can see from the general public (as I had opportunity to talk with many people about it), they actually realize it isn't Michael. It's only the MJ fans (or some part of them) have expected the "real" Michael and aren't happy because they haven't got the "real" Michael. If only they realize nothing could be "real" Michael.

 

[lom kit]

 

[Ramona122003]

Are people just clutching at straws now, or do they really not understand how any of this works? The movements not match some random video? I could pick out 5 videos of MJ doing the same move and it will be almost identical, I think the main pointer in that EV video is the move he does at the end which Michael never used to do which EV does. People are not constant but when Impersonator or anyone in general dances and rehearses that dance they put their own touch on the movements.

The Moonwalk was timed to the explosions so it got quicker during the end., watch the first couple of strides, this is how EV does his moonwalk, short strides.

Why an Impersonator instead of a random trained dancer? Because Impersonators try to emulate Michaels every movements and study them as much as they can. it is already an impersonators job to try fool the audience, picking an popular impersonator because they are successful at what they do. Usually you pic the best guys for the job?

EV was picked because from certain angles he looks great as MJ, and his facial structure was easiet to match some of MJ's face too, infact like I posted they didn't even CGI/Composite his face in some shots. There are shots of pure EV, take a look at them and then watch some EV videos, tell me its not the same guy.

Don't let your eyes lie to you like this guy.

"We couldn’t ever imagine having an impersonator, or a tribute show, because no one’s Michael. That would just be unthinkable" - John Branca.

Sorry, that is a poor excuse. There are many trained dancers who have study Michael's dance moves just as well as any impersonator and does a better job since they are trained dancer and not just impersonators. So, why not use a train dancer instead of some random impersonator. And since they placed a CGI head on him according to you, it would make a bit of different if Valentino looks like Michael from a certain angle, because he's wearing Michael's head. And why wouldn't they complete composite Michael's face from reference and video and use a look-alike. That does not even make sense. You also still haven't explain why the moonwalk the virtual Michael did was inferior to any Valentino does. So, it was timed to explode, that doesn't explain why the moonwalk was choppy and you know, they could have recorded Valentino doing the moonwalk (got his timing) and calculated the explosion.

For this comment "do they really not understand how any of this works?", are you asking me do I know how the technology works. Yeah, I do, I worked in it and I think I may know a bit more than you on this subject.

 

[Birchey]

Sorry, that is a poor excuse. There are many trained dancers who have study Michael's dance moves just as well as any impersonator and does a better job since they are trained dancer and not just impersonators. So, why not use a train dancer instead of some random impersonator. And since they placed a CGI head on him according to you, it would make a bit of different if Valentino looks like Michael from a certain angle, because he's wearing Michael's head. And why wouldn't they complete composite Michael's face from reference and video and use a look-alike. That does not even make sense. You also still haven't explain why the moonwalk the virtual Michael did was inferior to any Valentino does. So, it was timed to explode, that doesn't explain why the moonwalk was choppy and you know, they could have recorded Valentino doing the moonwalk (got his timing) and calculated the explosion.

For this comment "do they really not understand how any of this works?", are you asking me do I know how the technology works. Yeah, I do, I worked in it and I think I may know a bit more than you on this subject.

I am 100% sure now, what anyone posts doesn't matter and you clearly have no clue of what you are talking about. I explained in the very post you quoted everything you needed to know, including the moonwalk and the face composite, its pretty clear you a blatantly ignoring this and going along with your denial of an impersonator even though in their own video they clearly showed one in full dress. Anyhow if you know hows this all works, please feel free to post some evidence to support what you believe, otherwise they are just words in the wind.

 

[Bubs]

Yeah and I was completely just to suggest they would use an Impersonator wasn't I? People started calling me out for even suggesting the idea, not once have I stepped in this thread with an "I told you so" but I was right. And my sentence is EXACTLY truthful, as not all fans feared they would use an impersonator, but once they saw it on their TV screens, they went to find the truth.

I am tired of posting factual links to stuff, maybe you or anyone else who seems to admire Valentino's efforts could do some research youself, I'll give you a hint ABC news.

The fact is that few days before BB awards, somebody posted here facebook or twitter post from impersonator, and you took it as confirmation that there is going to be impersonator and started spreading more and more posts against about anything.

You cannot step in this thread and say you were right because I'm yet to hear real truth (not the same what you have in your head). You just keep spreading same links and same stuff that supports your stance, so nothing has changed.


I'm still waiting for you to point me to the article or video where estate and the people (who ever that might be) making claim this isn't impersonator, and please don't come back to me with something Branca said years ago relating to Immortal.
Talking about being so desperate that there is need for do something like that.


@Pentum, I thought your were 100% sure it was Navi, what happen


Guys, do me a favour and read about 10 first pages on this thread and keep on eye on dates. Who started the whole hysteria and how the whole thing was tried to ruined days before we saw anything.

 

[Birchey]

my understanding is that even the above is done/could be done, it would only move /do the Ghosts dance - in other words whatever was motioncaptured. So it is impossible to create a new performance from it. Am I wrong?

Ivy I won't quote your entire post but I will try to answer it.

Well we don't know how much was captured for Ghost, Michael might have gone through alot of moves, plus the walking motions and even his everyday mannerisms between dances. These could be split up and spliced together in different orders etc.

In terms of the cost of this "Illusion" most of the cost is in creating the effect, hiring people to rig this together, paying the people involved, dancers, choreographers and not in creating the VMJ, I found a few days ago the Mylar screen and rigging for the screen alone would have cost close to $400,000 Dollar, I don't have that at hand but I am going through my internet history to find the pricing page.

The approach I suggested is the traditional approach, it would not take years, if they claim it took them this long to film, then I can't see how plotting point on MJ performances to create a 3d model would take much longer, and even this isn't new its traditional animation. They were using this as far back as 1994 on the Lion King to make 3d images from 2d animation. The cost is irrelevant here, and it probably would not cost very much, there are thousands of CG artists who hand animate their work all the time, many put their work on youtube.

The problem isn't just how it was hyped its this -> "We couldn’t ever imagine having an impersonator, or a tribute show, because no one’s Michael. That would just be unthinkable" - John Branca.

So how does this work? We either believe John Branca and get ready for a performance on the billboards which surely has no Impersonator involved..............then find out we were lied to. Or just assume Branca lied in the first place? Simple that.

 

[Bubs]

Can I just put this out there before more lies are being fed as truth.

"We couldn’t ever imagine having an impersonator, or a tribute show, because no one’s Michael. That would just be unthinkable"

This is not something Branca said about this VMJ, but it is taken from his interview January 2012 regarding Immortal.
Here is the link to the full article: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/27/entertainment/la-et-immortal-story-20120127

Guys, you are going too far:no: Now you are taking something from old articles and presented here as it is something Branca said recently. Isn't that lie?

 

[ivy]

Well we don't know how much was captured for Ghost, Michael might have gone through alot of moves, plus the walking motions and even his everyday mannerisms between dances. These could be split up and spliced together in different orders etc.

as the answer is "we don't know", it makes it an assumption and so it might not be possible. (PG claims what was shot is what was shown on Ghosts and there isn't anything else). so if we are approaching to this realistically, if we don't know what is captured, we cannot expect it to be used.

In terms of the cost of this "Illusion" most of the cost is in creating the effect, hiring people to rig this together, paying the people involved, dancers, choreographers and not in creating the VMJ,

How do you explain Tupac costs? No dancers, no choregraphers. two doubles, only head is CGI, Pulse people said easiest to do as he didn't move much and his head was bald etc but still close to $1 Million dollars. So based on this I'm gonna assume the creating the hologram or virtual artists whatever you call it actually cost a lot of money. I will also assume that creating a whole body would cost way more than just creating a head. That's just common sense.

The cost is irrelevant here, and it probably would not cost very much

then why all the animation movies cost so much to make, if it's cheap like you claim? Avatar movie was around $300 Million with real people being motion captured - aka hybrid approach. The full animation movies - such as Tangled - cost $260 Million to make and it took it 6 years to make it. I don't believe what you suggest is quick or cheap.

And cost is totally relevant in the realistic and rational business world. They are creating the virtual MJ to promote the Xscape album so that it would sell and bring money. They wouldn't spend more money than they think they can earn. It's math.

The problem isn't just how it was hyped its this -> "We couldn’t ever imagine having an impersonator, or a tribute show, because no one’s Michael. That would just be unthinkable" - John Branca.So how does this work? We either believe John Branca and get ready for a performance on the billboards which surely has no Impersonator involved..............then find out we were lied to. Or just assume Branca lied in the first place? Simple that.

That's a quote from 2012 about Immortal and given as an answer why there isn't a MJ character on Immortal. It wasn't said about Billboard show. So I don't get why would anyone take it as a promise about Billboard show. It would also be impossible to have a MJ performance without a MJ character, isn't it? You should also be aware that the later show 2013 Cirque One included a hologram of not Michael. So if anything you should been able to realize that quote was only about Immortal - nothing else.

 

[Ramona122003]

I am 100% sure now, what anyone posts doesn't matter and you clearly have no clue of what you are talking about. I explained in the very post you quoted everything you needed to know, including the moonwalk and the face composite, its pretty clear you a blatantly ignoring this and going along with your denial of an impersonator even though in their own video they clearly showed one in full dress. Anyhow if you know hows this all works, please feel free to post some evidence to support what you believe, otherwise they are just words in the wind.

Sorry honey, you were the one who made the accusation that an imposter was used, so it is on you to provide the evidences, not I. I read your posts and you didn't explain why they used an imposter to build Michael's face when they had references and were aiming for a certain era (91). You also never explained why they needed a Michael Jackson impersonator since they plopped a Michael's face on body anyway, so it didn't matter if the person looked like Micahel, just had a similar built and height. You also didn't say why Valentino gave his worst moonwalk ever (the move that people most identify with Michael so he should had nailed that move above all others) because of timing, especially since they could have calculated the time by counting how long it takes Valentino to do his moonwalks on average.

And to say I don't know what I am taking about is laughable. I went to school and studied digital arts, CGI modelling, rigging, so to say that I don't know what I am talking about isn't an argument, especially since I am not the one going around posting Youtube videos of an imposter who may or may have been used. I have clearly stated my thoughts on this subject, namely that virtual Michael was indeed digital render using reference of Michael, most likely from Remember the Times and the Super Bowl. I also said that I do think some form of motion-caption was used given how slick the movements were, which I have not really seen why movements are done by rigging alone. I also pointed out that putting a CGI head on an imposter body may not work since Tupac's head floated and he was just bobbing, not singing and dancing across the stage. So, I leaned to virtual Michael being complete CGI since his body stood intact unlike Tupac.

Could I be wrong, yeah but I never claimed to know everything like you. You are the one who is presented their theory as 100% fact, not me. I fully admit my viewpoint is theory using what I know from my studies. If I am proven wrong, okay, I was wrong. I was wrong the first time since I thought virtual Michael was a 3D CGI model, instead of the digital one they built using several planes to give the illusion that Michael was 3D. Although, looking back it is obvious since Michael was 2D when the song started.

But believe what you want since you know more than me.

 

[Birchey]

The fact is that few days before BB awards, somebody posted here facebook or twitter post from impersonator, and you took it as confirmation that there is going to be impersonator and started spreading more and more posts against about anything.

Thank you for confirming the part about not reading others posts correctly or researching, I posted this "If they use an impersonators body, who is ready to burn down the internet with me?" completely off my own back, started as a joke, but a gut feeling they were going to use one.

You cannot step in this thread and say you were right because I'm yet to hear real truth (not the same what you have in your head). You just keep spreading same links and same stuff that supports your stance, so nothing has changed.


I'm still waiting for you to point me to the article or video where estate and the people (who ever that might be) making claim this isn't impersonator, and please don't come back to me with something Branca said years ago relating to Immortal.
Talking about being so desperate that there is need for do something like that.

ABC New - But the Estate did tell us it isn't an Impersonator

Frank patterson (Producer and CEO of Pulse) - Looking to innovate in this space of animated human beings

- Theres a different to being able to animate all of his muscle, and co-ordinatation of all this activity, in a believable way and actually make it feel human

John Textor(Chairman of Pulse) - The creation of a digital human performer

-the muscles in the neck.....driving the vocals

And about the Branca quote? its okay we can now forget that yes because its been a couple of years since he said it? Oh what he said it about Cirque Du Soleil..............who also did the same Illusion using an Impersonator. Is it really all it takes to get MJ fans hang on your every word as the truth, is just to not lied for a couple years?

Edit: and again about the Branca quote "we couldn't EVER imagine" guys stop trying to fit this into your stupid vision that this thing was created full CGI, You want to be fed BS fair enough speaks for yourselves, some of us don't, so please someone show me a fricken ounce of evidence to suggest that was full CGI, even one expert in CGI who wasn't involved or cashed in from this VMJ.

 

[Victor]

I don't think they used an impersonator

 

[Petrarose]

^^ It doesn't look human its looks virtual .. so how did they create that effect instead of looking like a real human. It's interesting if what you say is true - So then it would just be a different way to create the illusion of a Fantasy MJ performing . Just for entertainment and fantasy .

Does it matter how they created it. Is there a evil way and a good way to create a Illusion...... Its not suppose to be the real MJ. Its just and illusion of a fantasy MJ .Its show biz- Entertainment. nothing more nothing less. Its not a hologram , but a different way of creating a the illusion using an actor/dancer to create the illusion. . So I wonder why moral judgement is being placed on the Illusion . Like it is witch craft or something evil. .. and why should the model or dancer used to create an illusion (If true) be demonized as if they were evil. Its suppose to be entertainment its not suppose to be the real MJ. The reaction of some to me is scary , like burning witches at the stake ... there is no rational or moral reason .. to make this out to be something evil. Or even harmful to Michael, the fans or the public ... Its Entertainment. and was very well received by many . Its was also great publicity and positive promotion.

No one was promised a real MJ - (DUH) Just an illusion a fantasy for entertainment purposes and thats what we got. Whether the illusion looked or dance exactly like Michael is not a moral issue. because it can't . MJ is not here and no illusion can ever replace him. The illusion wasn't meant to replace him. Just remind us of his genius... and for many it did just that.

Well to THEM it is a big problem because the Estate LIED to them AGAIN. The estate told them it was not an impostor, according to them!!! They are hurt by the betrayal it seems. They wanted an illusion that moved, sang, and looked EXACTLY like Michael Jackson, King of Pop. No matter how much proof and reasoning you give them they will never accept it, so the best thing to do is see it for it is--a dramatic display of emotions gone wild. Sort of like a Wildfire of Emotions like the Wildfire of Madness. At least they are dealing with their frustrations, hurt, & disbelief in a creative way--they are making videos and posting comparisons of impersonators vs Michael.

The best way to read this thread is to put on STTR. I am doing that right now and it is great!! Please try it.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

The fact is that few days before BB awards, somebody posted here facebook or twitter post from impersonator, and you took it as confirmation that there is going to be impersonator and started spreading more and more posts against about anything.

You cannot step in this thread and say you were right because I'm yet to hear real truth (not the same what you have in your head). You just keep spreading same links and same stuff that supports your stance, so nothing has changed.


I'm still waiting for you to point me to the article or video where estate and the people (who ever that might be) making claim this isn't impersonator, and please don't come back to me with something Branca said years ago relating to Immortal.
Talking about being so desperate that there is need for do something like that.


@Pentum, I thought your were 100% sure it was Navi, what happen


Guys, do me a favour and read about 10 first pages on this thread and keep on eye on dates. Who started the whole hysteria and how the whole thing was tried to ruined days before we saw anything.

Nope. That's also wrong. The first post to come from an "impersonator" was minutes after the performance happened, and that was Christopher Gaspar who made a post that was roughly translated via Google, stating that he was used in place of a hologram, at an Xscape album event party..Gaspar has since been posting videos on his facebook of the performance itself, stating it isn't him, but that he also thinks it's an impersonator and not a computer generated image of Michael. Not a few days before, NOBODY here considered that they'd be seeing the dancing image of an impersonator prior to this happening. Therefore, it was never said...I challenge you to show me these posts you're referring to, because I don't recall them ever happening, because it simply didn't.

The fact of the matter is, the same people who attempted to vilify us for saying this whole time it was an impersonator, and basically telling us we were wrong. Are now backing up and switching they're whole argument with "well where did the Estate say they would'nt use an impersonator? So what Branca said it would never happen years ago, so what he went back on his word. Who are you to criticize the Estate for that?"...Like, are you people serious. We went through all of this, we actually did the research, we found out without a shadow of a doubt that what we saw was the dancing image of an impersonator, while others, maybe not yourself specifically, but while others were telling us, that we were being biased and that we don't know what we're talking about and that it's possible it was full CGI, and calling us "Estate haters". Yea, it was possible it could've been CGI, but we found out it wasn't. They were lazy, simple as that. They deserve to be called out for that laziness.

The simple fact is, the Estate promoted and advertised this tagline, "Michael like you've never seen him before". And the other simple fact is, we saw NO Michael, at all. And then the Estate implied it was a full CGI image, knowing it wasn't, by telling us no impersonators were used. What do you think these articles and reliable news promotions like CNN & ABC simply made that sentence up on their own? No, they were fed it by the Estate and those involved and told what to report, "no impersonators were used"...The thing is, that's a 100% lie. We knew it, we proved it, and some of you just can't come to terms with that apparently.


Like, I just seen Ramona type to Birchey, "You're the one who claimed it was an impersonator, so the burden lies on you to prove it"..She's right, and he did. Now it seems as if, a picture of an impersonator on the set, in the same clothes, with the dancers, rehearsing the performance, isn't good enough for some people. Video's showing this "CGI" sharing the exact same dance moves and motions as a known impersonator, isn't good enough. Then it was put all together, people who actually work in and know the CGI field voiced their views and none of it was positive, that isn't good enough for some people. It's mind boggling because none of you have done ANYTHING to prove to us that it actually was a full CGI, nah, you just sat back and criticized and labeled us "Estate haters" while we simply did the research to back up our viewpoint...Now, do the research to back up yours. That's all that's left at this point, because we did our work, and for most of you the obvious isn't good enough.

 

[ivy]

I'm going to back my what I previously said with google expertise

I googled to see time and money it takes to create a full animation such as Birchey suggested before. I found this : http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/20...sity_why_do_animated_movies_cost_so_much.html


Art work creation: A single frame of an animation film can have millions of moving parts. For the Sully character in Monsters, Inc., there were 2,320,413 individually named hairs on his body. When he moves, the animators have to animate each hair in the body to create a highly realistic effect. A single frame involving Sully took 11-12 hours of creative time, on an average, according to WebPro News. (each hour of film is 100,000 or more frames)

Based on this I'm confident that such animation would take a lot of time. If an hour of movie is 100,000 frames, a 4 minute video would be 6667 frames. I'll assume it required 12 hrs of creative time for animation - given a moving human would be at least equal (if not harder) to animate. That would take 80000 creative hours (rounded).


Studio costs: Studios such as Pixar have 600 or more creative people working on a movie for three to four years. They need to be housed and provided a creative environment and tools to do their creation.

Given how much time it requires to animate a single frame, it makes sense even for a 600 people workforce it takes 3-4 years (and even up to 6 years) to animate such movies. If we do a little math and assume that an average movie is 90 minutes, it would take Pixar with their 600 people workforce to a 4 minute animation 1.6 to 3.2 months. But again that is if 600 people work on it. If you check Pulse's website you would see their creative side is 6 people. so it would take them 100 times longer - 13 years. Math might not be perfect here but regardless I guess we can agree that it requires a lot of labor hours and how long it would take depends on the work force.

Next I googled for average cost of a pixar movie (source: http://www.boxoffice.com/articles/2012-06-number-crunch-pixar-draft)

"Their next six films (from 2006's Cars through 2011's Cars 2) the average budget has skyrocketed 82% to $240.8 million."

I used the same assumption that this $240 million was for an 90 minute movie.Therefore a 4 minute animation would cost around $10 Million.


As you can see I collected the information available and made some assumptions. I believe this demonstrates what was suggested by some people on this thread, isn't easy to do - as they also stated. It would require considerable amount of time, workforce and money. So everyone can come to their own conclusions if such demands and/or expectations are realistic or reasonable.

 

[ivy]

What do you think these articles and reliable news promotions like CNN & ABC simply made that sentence up on their own?

ehehehehehe hilarious. just the other day you and Birchey was claiming CNN made up "Hologram USA made virtual MJ' and Alki never said it himself. Now you state media don't make sentences on their own. Double standard wouldn't you say?

@Birchey - why do you act like you ever believe what Estate or Branca says? When he had that quote in 2012, did you believe him or take his word for it that you were hyped up and now disapointed?

 

[#MJforever57]

Well to THEM it is a big problem because the Estate LIED to them AGAIN. The estate told them it was not an impostor, according to them!!! They are hurt by the betrayal it seems. They wanted an illusion that moved, sang, and looked EXACTLY like Michael Jackson, King of Pop. No matter how much proof and reasoning you give them they will never accept it, so the best thing to do is see it for it is--a dramatic display of emotions gone wild. Sort of like a Wildfire of Emotions like the Wildfire of Madness. At least they are dealing with their frustrations, hurt, & disbelief in a creative way--they are making videos and posting comparisons of impersonators vs Michael.

The best way to read this thread is to put on STTR. I am doing that right now and it is great!! Please try it.

Going to do this now.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

I'm sorry but do you actually understand what you've said in one of you post ... You've basically said that there's no difference in REAL MICHAEL and Valentino ... That you can't differ them !!! You were talking not about VMJ but real Michael. So?! What should I think and write about it. You ask me to "find 10 differences" and go on telling me that there's none ... I AM in shock!

No differences ... I find it a bit offensive to Michael actually.

We all have right to voice our opinions. It is not a aproblem.

No, it's a problem when you attempt to imply superiority over another fan. I didn't say there's no difference between Earnest Valentino & Michael Jackson. I said in terms of their body, in costume, there isn't much noticeable difference's. I wasn't talking about his face, his walk, his hair or anything else, I said his body. And the examples I posted attested to that, in which the only difference was the height of the two and the slope of the shoulders. And the only reason for that was Michael wearing heels at that event.

You attempt to tell me I don't know Michael Jackson, as if you actually know me or how long I've idolized the man. Yet when I respectfully asked you to show me these obvious differences between the two, you couldn't do it and go about using this same bullshit paragraph in every post "You tell me there's no difference..I AM in shock!"

Lol, like, what? List the differences or not. However when you can't list them, don't attempt to tell me I don't know Michael, when I've looked up to the man since '93.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

ehehehehehe hilarious. just the other day you and Birchey was claiming CNN made up "Hologram USA made virtual MJ' and Alki never said it himself. Now you state media don't make sentences on their own. Double standard wouldn't you say?

@Birchey - why do you act like you ever believe what Estate or Branca says? When he had that quote in 2012, did you believe him or take his word for it that you were hyped up and now disapointed?

Correction, Birchey said that, you didn't see a post of mine stating that. And I agree with him, Alki David never did say during that interview that "Hologram USA made virtual MJ". So what is this double standard you speak of?

 

[Galactus123]

I don't think they used an impersonator

Then who? Clearly it wasn't Michael.

 

[Ramona122003]

Then who? Clearly it wasn't Michael.

It was magic.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

Houdini would be turning in his grave if he knew how people have lowered their standards in regards to "Magic".

 

[Pentum]

So many posts, can't even bother reading, because some of you are missing the simple fact that EV is using a few moves which MJ NEVER EVER USED.

AND EV USED THE EXACT SAME MOVES himself in his videos. That's why the comparison video is here.

Is it so hard? Go find a video of MJ doing that odd side glide, the odd on toes while pointing down with his head just like that and the other one with his fits out. You won't succeed.