That's what I think too. Even though they are being sued they shared the information about the technology etc with the media. I don't think they re hiding anything. They might not be forthcoming with all details but not hiding.
and what theory would that be? I do think especially the mouth was off. Dancing wasn't that good. I wouldn't make him wear those red shoes. I also stated every past example showed a body double and if it was used due to the limitations of technology/ money / time, I wouldn't go crazy about it - meaning rationally and realistically agree with the limitations affecting some choices. So what theory are you talking about? If you want to hear the details of what I exactly think, ask me and I'll tell.
I didn't say it was anger toward petrarose. I was talking about the general tone and how frustrated and harsh it sounds towards other members - who had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the hologram.
and some people won't have the need to prove or disprove anything. I was trying to see where that rehearsal photo came from and I realized it was taken for a computer screen on a frame in a video. That requires a certain level of dedication and even obsession towards this topic. Not everyone will going to have that.
and some things are explained in rational way - not proven or disproven but simply explained. You choose to reject those.
and you have been wrong at times, haven't you? Remember how you claimed the clothes were absolutely cheap impersonator clothes and now there's video proof that Michael Bush was involved. So you see how you (generally speaking) claiming you know everything and/or 100% correct can be problematic for some?
clarify this for me please. is it clearly not Michael all the time? Because if you read some posts carefully Ramona mentioned a body double for height, I did mention how body doubles seem to be a common use in this technology and so on. I also posted something from PG from Max Jax(where you read and post as well) that some pieces were MJ reference material - such as B&W hair, B&W face movements and so on. Kapital posted a picture claiming the face was modelled after Immortal cover and even Birchey mentioned several reference materials. I had mentioned PG's position of perhaps this is part MJ reference material, part CGI and rest filled in by an double. So couldn't this be a situation where everyone is partially correct? and if it has part of everything how do you label it?
Unfortunately I agree. Over the course of this last week I had chance to talk with many people - my co workers, friends, family and such majority being only causal listeners. To them this was "hologram MJ" and none of them perceived is as "real MJ" so they had no disappointment that the "hologram MJ" wasn't "real". they would kinda split three ways that some thinking it was the coolest thing they saw, some just found it creepy and some in the middle feeling weird and amazing at the same time. They had mostly moved on from it in a few days and especially after the video of the high school student dancing to MJ had surfaced.
This is only an issue among the fan community and even approached to it as "end of the world" kinda situation. Posts and approach to it also getting hostile. and yeah it's getting old and tired as I said. I'm so tired with all these meaningless fighting among fans, I'm tired with even a single simple event turning to a huge debate. The constant drama takes from our joy and enjoyment. And it is a disservice to all of us.
The idea that this double was simply there in the same clothes as the "VMJ" not because of his actual involvement but simply as a placeholder.
And again, why is all the harsh and frustration filled comments from your side against us, going unnoticed? Over and over again we've been labeled "Estate haters", I've been told I don't contribute to the Estate's purpose of generating money for Michael's children and that I don't know Michael from the average impersonator, when all of those things couldn't be any farther from the truth. We've been mocked for not buying the Estate's explanation, we're still being mocked for providing evidence that it isn't a full CGI image and is the projected image of an impersonator and a half assed CGI face, it's been going on for the past two pages. But you aren't mentioning any of that. Things can get heated when people simply misconstrue words, and put forth these false labels, simply because we don't see things their way. We've pointed out the Estate not being completely honest with the whole "Michael like you've never seen him before" tagline, only to be told that we care too much, and that we simply just want to "ruin the enjoyment" of everyone else. When that also, is farthest from the truth. Fact is, we just don't appreciate being taken for fools, and will gather whatever we can and point out whatever we can, to show that they take us for fools and to prove to them that we know better so they won't try to do it again. Now all of a sudden we don't have that right? We can't do that with being inaccurately labeled? If you sense frustration, there's a reason for it. Acknowledge that, look at it from both sides of the spectrum. Some of us think this "hologram"/impersonator, was a nightmare from the moment the curtain went up, yet it seems like those of us who enjoyed it, simply want's everyone on the same page, like a bunch of a sheeple. Kissing the Estates behind over every project, even though we realize they're trying to play us for a bunch of fools. Nah, can't do that.
And this is also part of the problem. In any other instance, this wouldn't be stood for. Had someone said during the Cascio debate that those who went through the time to gather vocal comparisons, screencaps, and other things to prove their viewpoint, was simply obsessed, as opposed to not appreciating being taken for a fool, things would be different. But because the majority of MJJC seem to enjoy watching an impersonator prance around on stage in bad MJ face (in my opinion), we're now obsessed. Nah, the simple fact is they weren't entirely honest in the promotion of this. That's it. That's all we've been saying, not that this ruins the Xscape album, or any other crazy stuff like that, just simply they weren't being 100% honest. They still aren't, because they're still alluding to it being a full CGI image, when it's 90% human body, 10% CGI (in my opinion). The simple fact is, the Estate promoted this as experiencing Michael in a live setting. The Estate promoted this as "like Michael being in concert." The Estate promoted and advertised this as "Michael, like you've never seen him before", yet outside of his vocals, we got NO Michael. It's simple as that, they weren't 100% honest, we went about finding what we needed to to back that up. And because of it, we're obsessed? Like, huh?
PG said that, but PG has since co-signed the very same post Birchey posted here. Implying that they agree with the Earnest Valentino theory. So who knows what PG thinks at this point. Kapital said the face looked like the Immortal cover, not that it was modeled after it. I don't recall seeing Birchey say that it was part reference material, not lately. I'm not sure he believes that, but that's up to him to answer, I don't know. I think some parts are obviously references of Michaels past work, but that doesn't mean it's Michael dancing. For instance, it's obvious they incorporated part of that dance break with part of the routine from BOW, that's the reference material. However, that wasn't Michael's exact dance moves from the BOW video. Meaning, it isn't like they just made this "CGI" dance with Michael's own steps, it's simply the impersonator, impersonating Michael's dance moves from that video, and not looking that great doing it. That's what I think. In that case, everyone can't be right, but I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.
Because you think the general public and your friends and co-workers moved on from it, doesn't mean it's a requirement for us to do so as well. Just saying in general. Notice this was a mostly peaceful debate, until we started to actually put forth reasons why we believed what we did, and then people began to throw these incorrect labels at us and telling us that we had no positive thoughts about it, than to just shut up (SmoothMJ). It wasn't until then where all this "constant drama" came about.
I too have spoken to many people outside of the fan community, and I haven't come across many people who thought fondly of the performance, from most of the information I've gathered, most people thought it sucked and was obviously rushed, others just found it distasteful. I have yet to come across anyone outside of this website who thought it was great or even remotely resembled a full computer generated image.
cheeky
By Philip Sherwell, New York9:00PM BST 24 May 2014<iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.1400006231.html#_=1400967541247&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&screen_name=philipsherwell&show_count=true&show_screen_name=false&size=m" class="twitter-follow-button twitter-follow-button" title="Twitter Follow Button" data-twttr-rendered="true" style="width: 162px; height: 20px;"></iframe>
CommentIt was the ultimate showbusiness comeback, a computer-generated resurrection that brought the boy who never grew up back from the grave.Five years after his death, a digitally-recreated Michael Jackson stole the show at last week's Billboard music awards as he sang, danced and moonwalked across the stage in familiar fashion.The four-minute performance was a remarkably convincing illusion made possible by the latest breakthroughs in human animation, visual effects and facial modelling, combined with techniques first pioneered by 19th century magicians.But it is not just the King of Pop who may now live on forever. With the techniques that recreated him having now passed their first major "live" performance test, numerous other dead stars may soon be on stage again as the executors for their estates eye up a world of posthumous performances, shows and tours."We have already heard from about the estates of about a dozen iconic performers and some of the biggest venues in the world who are interested in staging concerts and shows using this technology," John Textor, chairman of Pulse Evolution, the digital effects company that put Jackson back on stage, told The Sunday Telegraph.He declined to identify particular celebrities, but the industry is already abuzz with speculation that the likes of Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley could appear in lifelike form once again.The potential revenues for such tours are huge. It is estimated that a two-year world tour featuring the digital Michael Jackson could rake in half a billion dollars. In a sign that a tour is already in the works, his 59-year-old sibling, Jermaine, said that the brothers who once formed the Jackson 5 were working on a new music together.Mark Roesler, the founder of CMG Worldwide, which represents late celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe and James Dean, said that his company was also in discussions about several similar projects, including plans to stage a show in Las Vegas and London featuring a hologram version of Bette Page, the former American model known as the "Queen of Pinups"."This is an incredibly exciting time," he said. "We are talking about bring back to life some of the greatest personalities we have known, people who had an enormous impact on the world."Technological gimmicks and holograms have increasingly been used to resurrect dead stars in films and commercials, while computer-generated imagery has been used to complete filming when actors die during a production.But the new technology that brought the crowd to their feet for the virtual Michael Jackson heralds a future for onstage "live" performances by the dead. Despite several reports referring to the re-creation as a hologram, the technique does not actually involve holography, which uses projections of light to create the appearance of a three-dimensional image on a two-dimensional surface.Instead, the team at Pulse began eight months ago with a computer-generated version of a gold-jacketed Jackson circa 1991 which was then the subject of a lengthy and comprehensive animation process.Facial modelling experts worked with former Jackson collaborateurs, including the choreographers who toured with him, to develop the likeness, writing computer code to replicate his hair, skin, and facial expressions. They even noted the patterns of the ligaments in his neck as he sang.For the show, six high-powered projectors hung were over the stage to direct the high-resolution footage of the virtual Jackson down to a tilted piece of clear reflective plastic.From there, the video bounced off the surface towards the audience, giving the impression that Jackson was on stage in front of them. The technique is drawn from an old magician's trick called Pepper's ghost, in which plate glass and special lighting is used to reflect images for viewers who cannot see the source.The Jackson illusion for the Billboard show was reinforced by the use of live dancers on stage, apparently passing behind and in front of the star, completing a spectacular night of smoke and mirrors."It's so important to experience Michael Jackson in a live setting," said John Branca, the estate executor who commissioned the digital illusion. "We wanted a live performance in front of a live audience.''Jackson is already the world's highest-earning dead celebrity, bringing in an $160 million for his beneficiaries, according the most recent Forbes survey.The show illustrated his enduring appeal. The television broadcast attracted 10.5 million viewers, its highest rating for 13 years, and millions more have watched online. In the subsequent social media frenzy, some complained that the re-creation of the late star was by its very nature "creepy", and that the dance moves fell short of the real thing, but the performance was generally well-received."When this all came together, it really gave me the chills, it felt so real," said Frank Patterson, Pulse's chief executive. "We worked with people who knew Michael really well, his family and friends, and when they started to cry, we knew we'd got it right. And then we all started to cry."They were not the only ones moved that night. There were nearly 20 living A-list stars performing at the Billboard awards, but it was the dead Jackson who brought the audience to their feet. Appropriately, the performance included Slave to the Rhythm from Xscape, a new posthumous album of previously unreleased recordings.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...r-signs-in-the-eyes-of-concert-promoters.html
