Michael Jackson To Unleash World Premiere Experience At Billboard Music Awards

[knigofpop]

Approximately 80 pages of the same questions being asked amd answered, asked and answered asked and answered! I enjoyed it for what it was... not to worried about the tech.

But you guys are just going around in circles guessing at what was and wasn't done x x I love it here x x

 

[OnirMJ]

Surely it is understood Robin Leach is to blame.

Negative or not it would have been seen as a tribute and not "MJ as you never seen him before." Is anyone going to claim they have seen MJ since he passed? So, why market this in such a manner? Simple; it was proven it worked before. As with the faux tracks masses could care less if it was Michael and some fans defended the actions of Estate/Sony. History has been repeated and taken one step further.

Seriously you can not compare fake songs with this. Computer character or impersonator with CGI head.. what is the difference? Really? Neither one of them are Michael Jackson.

And even though Ludacris called it Michael Jackson, the Estate never said it is Michael Jackson. They said Michael Jackson Experience, Virtual Michael and King Of Pop Illusion. Only crazy person can think that that was real Michael since there is no footage of Michael performing that song (which they also said).

 

[Pentum]

Lol

Somebody who worked on the MJ experience told to something different, but I cannot tell his name as he too signed NDA

See how easy it is to spread nonsense all over the internet.

Errr, since when did Damien report false information? He has shared exclusive info for a while now and is always dead on. Why would he lie about this?

 

[ivy]

The "illusion" was labeled Michael Jackson and presented as Michael Jackson. It was presented as MJ live during the billboard, and it's titled Michael Jackson - STTR on MJ Vevo.

And based on the video I posted didn't we discover the same thing for Tupac? A Body double, a voice actor, CGI face and billed and posted as Tupac hologram on his official channel.

turns out as Audrey Hepburn was also a CGI on a actress double, I wonder if a living human body double is actually a requirement for this type of technology.

 

[OnirMJ]

Errr, since when did Damien report false information? He has shared exclusive info for a while now and is always dead on. Why would he lie about this?

But he always named his source. What he did now is not cool. Why would anyone from the production team tell him the highly secured secret?

 

[Pentum]

And based on the video I posted didn't we discover the same thing for Tupac? A Body double, a voice actor, CGI face and billed and posted as Tupac hologram on his official channel.

turns out as Audrey Hepburn was also a CGI on a actress double, I wonder if a living human body double is actually a requirement for this type of technology.

But I don't care about Tupac.

But he always named his source. What he did now is not cool. Why would anyone from the production team tell him the highly secured secret?

Oh, okay, so why would he choose to make up a lie? What would he gain from that? Pretty insulting of you, when he always have been providing great and exclusive information on MJ's music and history.

 

[L.T.D]

I really think they underestimate us. Just once I'm sure they would love to try something like this and just get away with it without us getting to the bottom of it. We may have even discovered the exact impersonator they used.

 

[OnirMJ]

Oh, okay, so why would he choose to make up a lie? What would he gain from that? Pretty insulting of you, when he always have been providing great and exclusive information on MJ's music and history.

Because it is impossible that anyone told him that. If he was told that that means that thousands of other people who have their web page were also told that. Why only him? Doesn't make any sense. It is highly secured secret. No one is allowed to talk about it. People lie on TV to protect themselves but they tell Damien Shields the truth! He had his opinion (which may be true) since he saw first second of that performance (he tweeted holosham and fakeogram) and then he wrote that article (which is good) but he added that sentence to make it more relevant. In my opinion that sentence was not necessary and he loses his credibility by writing such things. That is a tactic of Roger Friedman and other tabloid journalists. He is better than that and he should delete that sentence.

 

[Pentum]

Because it is impossible that anyone told him that. If he was told that that means that thousands of other people who have their web page were also told that. Why only him? Doesn't make any sense. It is highly secured secret. No one is allowed to talk about it. People lie on TV to protect themselves but they tell Damien Shields the truth! He had his opinion (which may be true) since he saw first second of that performance (he tweeted holosham and fakeogram) and then he wrote that article (which is good) but he added that sentence to make it more relevant. In my opinion that sentence was not necessary and he loses his credibility by writing such things. That is a tactic of Roger Friedman and other tabloid journalists. He is better than that and he should delete that sentence.

Whatever, enjoy your fake "virtual MJ". Earnest Valentino is laughing at you.

 

[ivy]

But I don't care about Tupac.

Sorry Pentum but this is an excuse. Look I don't know the technology and I won't act like I know it. Every example we have seen - such as Tupac and Audrey Hepburn and even the Avatar movie (which was done by these guys as well) - required an actress/actor/body double/motion capture etc. So if that's what the technology (or time or money constraint) requires then people are being unreasonable in their approach and evaluation of this situation.

Also a little rational thought should tell everybody that even if there's a double, they won't obviously state that well because it's not good publicity. Would Dr. Dre who spent $1 Million out of his pocket for Tupac Hologram go on record and say "by the way that ain't tupac. we got an body double and a soundalike to fake it"? Why do you expect Estate or anyone else to come out and say "That ain't Michael"? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? The purpose is to create an illusion, make people feel like they are watching Tupac and/or Michael when they aren't actually watching them. So they really wouldn't out the illusion.

I'm sorry to say - and not limited to you personally - but sometimes MJ fans aren't strong in realistic approach to stuff. It's almost like they can't accept limitations, conditions and reality. Reading this thread at times it almost felt like some expected Michael to rise from his grave and record a motion capture of his dance. Come on people.

for the record : I'll agree that the face CGI isn't the best one and yes could have been improved. I'm not crazy about the dance either. visually - the background, dancers etc- I'll put it far far better than Tupac one. So my evaluation of this isn't positive. But if they needed a body double (whether the technology, time limitations or the cost required it), I won't go crazy about it. Because at the end it doesn't matter if they billed it as "Michael Jackson", I'm able to realize that ain't Michael Jackson and posthumous releases (regardless if it's an album, a video, or a hologram) cannot be "Michael Jackson" no matter who they bring in , what technology they use or how much money they spend on it. I personally do not need any source or official statement to tell me that. I know that, I shape my expectations around that. I don't expect posthumous albums to be at the same level as MJ's studio albums. I didn't expect this hologram to be exactly like Michael either.

 

[darkmed]

Whatever, enjoy your fake "virtual MJ". Earnest Valentino is laughing at you.

well you shold too friend cause MJ is dead and they will never be able to replicate one just so you feel satisfied and what you need to enjoy is the whole experience the promo the album the videos comin' etc everything.

Edit : + you aint the target for you they just had to add the opriginal demos and you ran to order the deluxe

 

[L.T.D]

Michael is a lot harder to replicate than Tupac. If the technology is only at the stage now that they need to use an impersonator then they shouldn't have done it, it's insulting to Michael when they said you can't tell the difference and it's insulting to MJ fans that we are supposed to believe an impersonator isn't involved.

I thought this was supposed to be completely new state of the art technology anyway? If they needed a body double like they did for Tupac then how is it really that new? Am I missing something?

 

[Pentum]

Sorry Pentum but this is an excuse. Look I don't know the technology and I won't act like I know it. Every example we have seen - such as Tupac and Audrey Hepburn and even the Avatar movie (which was done by these guys as well) - required an actress/actor/body double/motion capture etc. So if that's what the technology requires then people are being unreasonable in their approach to this situation.

Also a little rational thought should tell everybody that they won't state that well because it's not good publicity. Would Dr. Dre who spent $1 Million out of his pocket for Tupac Hologram go on record and say "by the way that ain't tupac. we got an body double and a fake voice"? Why do you expect Estate or anyone else to come out and say "That ain't Michael"? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? The purpose is to create an illusion, make people feel like they are watching Tupac and/or Michael when they aren't actually watching them. So they really wouldn't out the illusion.

I'm sorry to say - and not limited to you personally - but sometimes MJ fans aren't strong in realistic approach to stuff. It's almost like they can't accept limitations, conditions and reality.

for the record : I'll agree that the face CGI isn't the best one and yes could have been improved. But if they needed a body double (whether the technology, time limitations or the cost required it), I won't go crazy about it. Because at the end it doesn't matter if they billed it as "Michael Jackson", I'm able to realize that ain't Michael Jackson and posthumous releases (regardless if it's an album, a video, or a hologram) cannot be "Michael Jackson" no matter who they bring in , what technology they use or how much money they spend on it.

It's no excuse, I don't care what they do about Tupac. What they did to his "hologram" was wrong too, I'm sure there are Tupac fans out there who disliked it for that.

If they can't make a virtual MJ by compiling his old videos or make something out of scratch (purely digital), then they should just leave it alone and wait til the technology is better.

They can use the scans that have been posted in this thread many times, they could use MJ's Ghost motion tracking, there are many possibilities, as long as they still have them.

[youtube]NGatznp3fBM[/youtube] Look at what this dude did just with his laptop

 

[OnirMJ]

Whatever, enjoy your fake "virtual MJ". Earnest Valentino is laughing at you.

I'm not enjoying it. I think it's horrible. Why would you say that to me? I said it from the first view that it "suck", that it was "poorly executed", "badly done", that it had "poor face" and that it done "shitty moonwalk"... How is that enjoying?

The problem is that some of you had unrealistic expectations. What were you expecting? They said themselves that they don't have any footage of MJ performing that song.

 

[Pentum]

I'm not enjoying it. I think it's horrible. Why would you say that to me? I said it from the first view that it "suck", that it was "poorly executed", "badly done", that it had "poor face" and that it done "shitty moonwalk"... How is that enjoying?

The problem is that some of you had unrealistic expectations. What were you expecting? They said themselves that they don't have any footage of MJ performing that song.

I never defend something I think is horrible. So I guess we are different.

I was expecting anything else than an impersonator dancing. That's it, I had no high expectations at all - just no impersonating.

 

[OnirMJ]

I never defend something I think is horrible. So I guess we are different.

I was expecting anything else than an impersonator dancing. That's it, I had no high expectations at all - just no impersonating.

I'm not defending it at all. I think it should have never been done this way. I'm not an expert in the computer technology so I can't tell if what they said is true or false. What bothers me the most is lying and the lack of transparency on their part. If they used an impersonator (which now I think they did after watching the same thing being done with 2Pac) they should tell it. Because it is not really a big deal. Impersonator with CGI head or computer character, like I said, it's not that big difference meaning neither of them aren't Michael. That was the part of the "illusion" and "experience".. they tried and they failed.

But comparing this with Cascio tracks is just wrong. We all knew this ain't real because they told themselves that no footage exists. And looking at the technology it seems that even if they had a footage it can't be done without a body double.

 

[Ramona122003]

Sorry Pentum but this is an excuse. Look I don't know the technology and I won't act like I know it. Every example we have seen - such as Tupac and Audrey Hepburn and even the Avatar movie (which was done by these guys as well) - required an actress/actor/body double/motion capture etc. So if that's what the technology (or time or money constraint) requires then people are being unreasonable in their approach and evaluation of this situation.

Also a little rational thought should tell everybody that even if there's a double, they won't obviously state that well because it's not good publicity. Would Dr. Dre who spent $1 Million out of his pocket for Tupac Hologram go on record and say "by the way that ain't tupac. we got an body double and a soundalike to fake it"? Why do you expect Estate or anyone else to come out and say "That ain't Michael"? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? The purpose is to create an illusion, make people feel like they are watching Tupac and/or Michael when they aren't actually watching them. So they really wouldn't out the illusion.

I'm sorry to say - and not limited to you personally - but sometimes MJ fans aren't strong in realistic approach to stuff. It's almost like they can't accept limitations, conditions and reality. Reading this thread at times it almost felt like some expected Michael to rise from his grave and record a motion capture of his dance. Come on people.

for the record : I'll agree that the face CGI isn't the best one and yes could have been improved. I'm not crazy about the dance either. visually - the background, dancers etc- I'll put it far far better than Tupac one. So my evaluation of this isn't positive. But if they needed a body double (whether the technology, time limitations or the cost required it), I won't go crazy about it. Because at the end it doesn't matter if they billed it as "Michael Jackson", I'm able to realize that ain't Michael Jackson and posthumous releases (regardless if it's an album, a video, or a hologram) cannot be "Michael Jackson" no matter who they bring in , what technology they use or how much money they spend on it. I personally do not need any source or official statement to tell me that. I know that, I shape my expectations around that. I don't expect posthumous albums to be at the same level as MJ's studio albums. I didn't expect this hologram to be exactly like Michael either.

I just wanted to add that I have worked within the digital media field and have build a 3D person using references. I also know the commonly used process for such technology in both games and in movies. And I can tell you from both experience and observation, it is hard to build a 3D person, especially a person who have very distinctive mannerisms, facial expressions, and movements. Even with motion captive, it is close to impossible to capture all the subtle movements and facial expression within a person. That is why you have what is called Uncanny Valley even when a model is done exceptional well.

The fact of the matter, technology cannot fully replicate a person. We can get close, but a CGI person even with a body double and motion captive is not going to look or feel like the person they are mimicking. You have to suspend belief and accept what you are seeing is artificial much like you do when you see CGI aliens. Maybe in ten or twenty years we can fully replicate a person into a computer, but we are not there yet. If it was easy, we would have CGI dancers and actors by now.

 

[ExoticPrincess]

approximately 80 pages of the same questions being asked amd answered, asked and answered asked and answered! I enjoyed it for what it was... Not to worried about the tech.

But you guys are just going around in circles guessing at what was and wasn't done x x i love it here x x

exactly!

 

[L.T.D]

It's the same as the Cascio tracks in the sense that people are being lead to believe something is Michael when it's not, and to think that an impersonator can be used to mimic Michael's dance moves is insulting to Michael, in the same way that thinking an impersonator can be used to mimic Michael's vocals is.

The phrase 'you can't tell the difference' and people saying it was just like Michael was there on stage is what's really getting to me. To think people think THAT is in anyway comparable to the absolute MASTER who cannot be replicated makes me sick.

I'm noticing a pattern here that a lot of the posters who are most bothered by this are the regulars in 2000 watts who avidly collect and admire Michael's live performances and study every move and know every show off by heart, as well as a lot of others who aren't regulars down there of course. I think that's fair to say.

 

[ivy]

it's insulting to Michael when they said you can't tell the difference

isn't that from Robin Leach article? if yes I wouldn't take it as something Estate or Billboard said or claimed

I thought this was supposed to be completely new state of the art technology anyway? If they needed a body double like they did for Tupac then how is it really that new? Am I missing something?

the visual setting? Tupac looked like transparent and was only shown on a black background. MJ one had a full background, changes, and looked solid and not transparent. Perhaps that's the new technology.

If they can't make a virtual MJ by compiling his old videos

the limitation for that - as far as I can understand - is he would be doing what he did in real life. So that's the equivalent of a copy and paste?

or make something out of scratch (purely digital)

other people commented on this. as I said I don't have the knowledge to comment on that.

They can use the scans that have been posted in this thread many times, they could use MJ's Ghost motion tracking, there are many possibilities, as long as they still have them.

But wouldn't that just be the Ghosts dance? How is that considered new or fit with their goal? and don't you think fans would complain about not getting a new dance?

Look at what this dude did just with his laptop

I'm not sure if you are serious or not? That's an actual performance of Michael being projected. So that's exactly like projector Elvis. With that technique you can't modify MJ's moves at all. It's like cutting Billie Jean performance from Motown and project it to Billboard stage.

I just wanted to add that I have worked within the digital media field and have build a 3D person using references. I also know the commonly used process for such technology in both games and in movies. And I can tell you from both experience and observation, it is hard to build a 3D person, especially a person who have very distinctive mannerisms, facial expressions, and movements. Even with motion captive, it is close to impossible to capture all the subtle movements and facial expression within a person. That is why you have what is called Uncanny Valley even when a model is done exceptional well.

The fact of the matter, technology cannot fully replicate a person. We can get close, but a CGI person even with a body double and motion captive is not going to look or feel like the person they are mimicking. You have to suspend belief and accept what you are seeing is artificial much like you do when you see CGI aliens. Maybe in ten or twenty years we can fully replicate a person into a computer, but we are not there yet. If it was easy, we would have CGI dancers and actors by now.

Thank you for the info..

 

[OnirMJ]

It's the same as the Cascio tracks in the sense that people are being lead to believe something is Michael when it's not, and to think that an impersonator can be used to mimic Michael's dance moves is insulting to Michael, in the same way that thinking an impersonator can be used to mimic Michael's vocals is.

I disagree. With the Cascio tracks they said it is Michael Jackson which is not. With this they said it is not Michael Jackson and it is not. They said it is entirely created on computer (here is the only problem because obviously it is not). But they never claimed it is Michael Jackson. They said it is Michael Jackson illusion and Michael Jackson experience = not Michael Jackson.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

I'm hearing lately now that Tupac was a computer generated image completely. Don't know how true it is, but it can explain why the Tupac hologram was transparent and just looked a tad less life like than whatever that was at the Billboard awards.

Don't know about that though, since it's nearly identical to a known, famous, Tupac impersonator from New Jersey.

 

[L.T.D]

The fact of the matter, technology cannot fully replicate a person. We can get close, but a CGI person even with a body double and motion captive is not going to look or feel like the person they are mimicking. You have to suspend belief and accept what you are seeing is artificial much like you do when you see CGI aliens. Maybe in ten or twenty years we can fully replicate a person into a computer, but we are not there yet. If it was easy, we would have CGI dancers and actors by now.

That settles it for me then, I don't think it should of been done at all. I had no idea about any of this stuff before hand and had no idea was was possible and what wasn't possible so I expected way more than what we got and certainly didn't expect an impersonator. I do still believe it was over-hyped for what it was and that plays a big part in it for me.

I disagree. With the Cascio tracks they said it is Michael Jackson which is not. With this they said it is not Michael Jackson and it is not. They said it is entirely created on computer (here is the only problem because obviously it is not). But they never claimed it is Michael Jackson. They said it is Michael Jackson illusion and Michael Jackson experience = not Michael Jackson.

It's still lying about an impersonator being involved, in that sense it is the same about the Cascio tracks. They say it was all computer generated but people will look and think that footage of his dancing or whatever were used in the process, naturally people assume that.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

"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."

Bullcrap. Hahaha. Maybe he is right, but why lie?

Damien hasn't lied about anything thus far. In fact, majority of his information has always been on the money. Why would he start lying now? Makes no sense.


I also find it funny how many either dispute then co-sign Damien's articles based solely on their own convenience.

 

[OnirMJ]

Damien hasn't lied about anything thus far. In fact, majority of his information has always been on the money. Why would he start lying now? Makes no sense.


I also find it funny how many either dispute then co-sign Damien's articles based solely on their own convenience.

It was a good article like I said, but that sentence was not necessary. He loses his credibility when he is writing things like that without a source.

It's the same as that guy Robin before the show: I was told by anonymous source that they have footage.. or now Damien I was told by anonymous source that they used an impersonator.

Ok, they did.. but why that part with I was told. We know nobody who works in the production team would not say anything to anyone.

 

[OnirMJ]

Michael Jackson - Slave To The Rhythm
Production Companies: Optimum Productions, Pulse Evolution, Tricycle Logic
Creative Director: Jamie King
Associate Creative Director: Stephanie Roos
Executive Producers: John Branca, John McClain
Producers: Frank Patterson, John Textor, Karen Langford
Supervising Producers: Oualid Mouaness, Natalie Johns
Visual FX Supervisor: Stephen Rosenbaum
Production Designer: Tamlyn Wright
Editor: Guy Harding
Stylist: Michael Bush (Michael Jackson)
Stylists: Franck Chevalier (Dancers), Douglas VanLaningham (Dancers)
Choreographers: Rich Talauega, Tone Talauega
Production Manager: Nathan Stoebner
Production Coordinator: Joseph Davison

Stylist: Michael Bush - ok now enough with the story about cheap clothes from ebay!

 

[WhoIsIt89]

It was a good article like I said, but that sentence was not necessary. He loses his credibility when he is writing things like that without a source.

It's the same as that guy Robin before the show: I was told by anonymous source that they have footage.. or now Damien I was told by anonymous source that they used an impersonator.

Ok, they did.. but why that part with I was told. We know nobody who works in the production team would not say anything to anyone.

Except Damien HAS ALWAYS been known to have more information than the most of us among the Michael Jackson online community. It's ALWAYS been this way, nobody really questions it until it's about something that they feel differs from their own point of view.

They told us, it was made up of complete CGI, the image, the body, the clothes. They told us no impersonators were used. And now because they tell us Michael Bush made the clothes. I'm supposed to believe it? Yea, no thanks. I still know better than that.

 

[CrazyVegasMJ]

No offense to Damien cuz I do like reading his articles but ive never seen him as much of a reliable source.

He pretty much writes his articles as though he's posting in this forum and usually the only info he has is the info we already have here on the forum (or from official announcements, releases, etc).

So like I said I enjoy reading his articles but for me it's usually cuz it basically sums up most of the discussion going on in here anyways..

 

[OnirMJ]

It's ALWAYS been this way, nobody really questions it until it's about something that they feel differs from their own point of view.

No I think that he is right. But I just don't believe that "Sources involved in the creation of this performance" would tell him that and lie on TV. And "all of them signed strict non-disclosure agreements".

 

[LastTear]

I just wanted to add that I have worked within the digital media field and have build a 3D person using references. I also know the commonly used process for such technology in both games and in movies. And I can tell you from both experience and observation, it is hard to build a 3D person, especially a person who have very distinctive mannerisms, facial expressions, and movements. Even with motion captive, it is close to impossible to capture all the subtle movements and facial expression within a person. That is why you have what is called Uncanny Valley even when a model is done exceptional well.

The fact of the matter, technology cannot fully replicate a person. We can get close, but a CGI person even with a body double and motion captive is not going to look or feel like the person they are mimicking. You have to suspend belief and accept what you are seeing is artificial much like you do when you see CGI aliens. Maybe in ten or twenty years we can fully replicate a person into a computer, but we are not there yet. If it was easy, we would have CGI dancers and actors by now.

Thank you for this.

Can I ask, and I won't be offended if you chose not to answer, given what you know to be possible do you think this was a fair effort on behalf of the creators? I have become more impressed the more I've watched it but I see the flaws as well so I'm wondering if, for now, this is as good as it gets.