Michael Jackson To Unleash World Premiere Experience At Billboard Music Awards

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm confused with all the postings, opinions, and official videos regarding this.

So was it full cgi, motion capture, or a live actor touched up after filming?

The official video/article seems to say it's strictly cgi, but it's rather blatantly obvious it is not.

Looks like a bad impersonator that had his face altered (poorly).
 
Want to take a read of my post above and then post your side of the argument? want to see where you show us how its all CGI, no impersonator, or you don't have one? Not one piece of evidence (you know the stuff which usually wins the argument) as to how all the stuff MJ fans are doing to figure this out isn't justified? You are calling alot of people out here and how you find it "hilarious", well the stage is yours, this is a forum afterall.

I still find it hilarious and will continue to find it so, in the same way you will continue to do expositions of your videos and disclose 100% proven expert theories. I am not engaging in argument but finding in all this a source of humor, so if you are looking for an argument from me as you stated above, you will be waiting for a long time. Sure this is a forum, and some have a right to engage in what you are doing while others have a right to see it all as comic relief. Alas, I am seeing it all as a form of entertainment, and I have that right.

Now let me see what new stuff you have for me to enjoy.
 
Thanks, Birchey. Very thorough post.

Maybe there are more layers to this. Maybe what we have here is an impersonator of an impersonator. I watched Earnest do his steps and the VMJ does not duplicate them exactly...his posture, stance, the way he holds his hands and head, seem not an exact match.

I might be seeing things, of course. What I am suggesting makes.no.sense. But I do enjoy dancing and I did take some time to compare the two's dancing styles. Especially the way Earnest holds his head and shoulders while doing the/"his" steps...just not as "upright." It might be the angle I am seeing him dance at though. But why use Earnest's "signature" moves in the choreography, but then use a different dancer?

It's all so interesting.
 
Last edited:
But you didn't. What's at 3:57? The only difference the video shows in body form is the difference in height. And Michael was wearing heels. I simply respectfully asked you to point out these differences to me, you couldn't then resulted to imply that I don't know Michael from an impersonator, which the blatant implication of so is just incorrect.

Valentino does walk the stage like VMJ though. VMJ walks more like Earnest Valentino, than he does Michael Jackson.





This is ignorant. What crew of Estate haters? Who here is an Estate hater? I don't contribute to the Estate or they're effort to get Michael out of debt? Are you freaking kidding me? I bought that piece of shit album they disrespectfully called "Michael". Either I'm crazy, or that was actually my 10 dollars I gave as contribution to the Estate to actually go to Theatre to see This Is It. I've bought the DVD twice, standard edition and a limited edition that I found not too while ago. I bought the Blu Ray just for the "extra" extras. Either I'm crazy, or that wasn't my money they got from my purchase of Bad 25 Special edition...Hell, me purchasing Xscape, the more expensive deluxe edition, was just a figment of my imagination...Because I'm an Estate hater and have made no contributions to support them and most of all, Michael's children..And perhaps, just perhaps, Michael wanted to do one last tour, like many close to have claimed, so his children can see him perform live? Of course he knew he'd get paid, of course he wanted to get paid for his performance, but perhaps money, wasn't the sole reason for him deciding to come back for us? Nah no way right!?!? Because the guy was completely broke and simply couldn't figure out any other way to make money, like an album, or Las Vegas residency.....NEXT!!!!




@Allusio again, this isn't about mistakes, you're making more inaccurate claims there buddy. Clearly I gave them a chance to correct their mistake by continuing to purchase the products they put out after Michael. And for a while, and again, you can actually search through my posts and see that they attest to this, for a while I supported, defended, and even said on this very forum numerous times that they've rectified said mistake, for me with the release of Bad 25. When people were shitting on that album, I responded everytime by saying it was a quality effort and project and that made up for the Michael album, and that they honored us and our wishes by including the demos Michael were working on, audio of the Wembley show, and even the DVD of the Wembley show. I've said numerous times that I enjoy the Xscape album, and that I thought the only flaw that album had was the Leave Me Alone sample on APWNN. Which is the one song that I mentioned earlier, that I had an issue with, even with the complete removal of everything Michael outside of vocals that they called "contemporizing". So clearly, I've allowed them to make "one mistake", contrary to your belief.


But yet, this is another mistake of Michael magnitude. Not so much the performance itself, not so much the idea, as again, ALL of my previous posts before the performance in regard to matter, are me telling others how I don't think it's "unethical", like many were saying, and that I thought was kind of cool and hoped more would come out it. It's not even so much the execution of it all. It's the fact that they expect us to just believe that instead the image of an impersonator, we got an image of Michael. It's the fact that they insult our intelligence by first telling us no impersonators were used, and now expecting us to believe that it was a total CGI image. That's the mistake, and if I see a mistake like this, I don't simply have to eat it up and move along because you say so. I'm allowed to be critical of it, and I'm allowed to voice that.

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.
 
It was wicked to use a fake MJ all out, atleast put his face on there presisly!!! Would of been more enjoyable and clear cut presentation, then they could of take thier MJ homage to another level and have the fans clapping. ITs obvious this was for money and a prank, hey we control MJ's estate now they can do all sorts of kinds of things without our approval. What needs to be done here? Speak our minds of course but you MUST PROTEST!! Its the only way MJ will get justice, MJ demands you protect his LEGACY!!! We can't keep adoring the estate if they keep dissappointing and allowing second rate footage to air. This is not MJ's standands at all, this is a mockery.
 
I feel like some guys are taking this way over the top...

The estate isn't trying to "insult our intelligence"... C'mon guys it was an "illusion" for cryin out loud..

Obviously they know and everyone in the world knows MJ is gone..

Anyone in the their right mind knows that it wasn't the real MJ dancing on stage or even the real MJ being recorded for the illusion to dance on stage..

It's all part of the effect of the illusion..

If we were to ask David Copperfield how he made the Statue of Liberty disappear (I think that was it) he's obviously not going to tell us.. And by him not giving away how he made it happen isn't him "insulting our intelligence"...

Look, if the estate doesn't want to say exactly how they made it look as realistic in many ways as it did, then that's fine.. They're not saying "this is something MJ really did before he died and we're now showing you!"

Give it a break..


Couldn't agree more. On top of this, the performance was fairly decent as it was. I hope they will further improve should they do something similar in the future.
 
they claime this dancing Virtual Michael Jackson is totaly CGI from head to toe. no impressator is used. and Birchey posted screens where that guy's face is clear to see.
what do you call this?

its the same story as with the Cascio songs. He does sound like Michael, so it is Michael for them and sony.
Here, they hired a company to create an illusion. it does look like Michael, so it is Michael for them and the average watcher.

But, we hear closely. We see closely. Frame by frame. eventhogh, its easy to be seen even in normal motion, what was done.

download the HD video i posted in 2000watts. you can perfectly see, that this is real human being with real clothes, dancing.
no motion capture at all.


But that's just it, magic tricks are not meant to be viewed frame by frame or via highly zoomed close ups. Also, people keep saying that they said that they never used an impersonator and that the image is 100% Michael. This has not been stated by either Sony or the Estate from what I have read
 
Want to take a read of my post above and then post your side of the argument? want to see where you show us how its all CGI, no impersonator, or you don't have one? Not one piece of evidence (you know the stuff which usually wins the argument) as to how all the stuff MJ fans are doing to figure this out isn't justified? You are calling alot of people out here and how you find it "hilarious", well the stage is yours, this is a forum afterall.

But, you see, many of us don't really care if an impersonator was used to help create this performance. We understand the difficulty in putting something like this together (apparently it took 8 months and a lot of money to produce as it was). We also accept the fact that this was an illusion and not Michael Jackson. Like you, we know the difference. But this doesn't stop us from appreciating the outcome despite the warts and wrinkles. Honestly, I do not understand why people are spending so much time and effort to analyse this. What will it prove in the end? That it wasn't Michael on the stage that night? Sadly, we already know this thanks to a very incompetent doctor
 
Its possible they used motion capture to animate virtual MJ - Like the skeleton in Ghosts. But based on the interviews of them discussing the CGI and trying to get the muscles correct etc, I believe it is a full CGI. I don't believe they just filmed a dancer/impersonator in costume for the VM. but "Motion capture" Just as they used MJ to animate the skeleton. Which would be the best way to animate it . IMO
I can tell you... I'm a character animator and I worked also with mocap.
There was NO animatoin or motion capture involved.

They were just filmed the characters in chroma key... and after they went trough a post-production compositing process.
Everything we saw at BB were people filmed in flesh and bones and projected on the screen the after.
 
^^ 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.
 
Last edited:
they claime this dancing Virtual Michael Jackson is totaly CGI from head to toe. no impressator is used.

Can you point me to the article or where ever you found that claim, because I don't remember seeing it anywhere?
and who is "they" you are talking about?

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........................

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?
 
Since when was a magician or producer or anyone who creates an illusion obligated to tell the secret of how it was created. How it was created isn't a moral issue because it is just an illusion .. A fantasy .. Xscapism.. Entertainment.. A magician isn't going to tell you "I made a hologram of an elephant disappear on stage." They say they say I made an Elephant disappear ..... so then we should go after the magician and say. You are a liar your performance is evil .. you didn;t reveal to us the secret that it was was just a hologram elephant or a CGI elephant or an elephant impersonator .. :giggle:
 
Last edited:
Uhm, what? I'm asking for miracles by simply hoping them to stay somewhat true to Michael's music and legacy? The Estate says on their own, that they exist to preserve and continue Michael's legacy. They also say everything Michael did during his life accounts to that legacy, including the standard he set for his work. But I'm asking too much by hoping they stay somewhat true to their own statement of "preserving and continuing" Michael's legacy? Yea okay....


This was advertised as "Michael", I expect to see Michael, and no I don't mean Michael back from the dead, be real. Common sense says I expect to see an image of Michael, no matter where it may be from, no matter the performance, I expect to see Michael, perhaps doing the moves that he actually mo-capped in Ghosts. I DO NOT expect to see the image of an impersonator. Which is what I believe I saw.

I feel that way too many people here thinks that the legacy Michael spent building his lifetime, is so flimsy that every little thing can affect to it can possibly even ruin it altogether. Do you think in 20 years time, when people are talking about MJ, they are going say a word about this VMJ? No, they are talking about his music that he created during his life time, how it effected on people and how it changed music business etc

There are millions of opinions of "staying true to Michael's legacy" means and how it should be preserved, that includes yours, the estate's and mine opinion. The estate is doing what they think what MJ would have wanted or done.

About that Michael setting standard for his work. Again, it is impossible that anyone else can do the same as MJ, so yes, you are asking miracles if you are expecting that what estate is doing is going to wow you as much as when Michael himself did. Yes, the estate says they try to keep up with standards as close as MJ, but you need to lower your expectations, they (the estate) is not MJ. You are not going to enjoy any of the posthumous releases if you think that way. In 20 years time, you still be here complaining standards and how the estate didn't do posthumous releases according to your expectations.

The event was advertised as "Michael as you never seen him before", so my question is, have you seen Michael like that before :cheeky: Floating head and all:D

I had my little expectations what I would have wanted to see in this awards show, but I wasn't disappointed because I understand certain limitations, my expectations were set by myself, and lots of other things that I won't bother writing about.

A little after thought, have you seen these notes:
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...dwritten-notes-from-Jackson-AEG-trial-motions

Check that list of what MJ wanted to do and compare how many of those the estate actually have done in matter of few years. Tell me again they don't follow the path that MJ laid on those papers. They may not do it the way you want, but they do it the way they can, and according they think it serves best for Michael.

I wonder if they ever bring out MJ cookie as mentioned in one of those notes, whether the people would be complaining that they are not enough Michael-esque, or doesn't contain enough Michael, or doesn't taste enough Michael?
 
Last edited:
Again, there’s a big difference in one dancer, an impersonator if you like, to help to create a Virtual MJ. So after all it was computerize to look more like MJ, so there’s a virtual MJ.

And something that I hear from some fans – just an impersonator.

But somehow he looks very virtual.

Even Valentino would do VMJ moonwalk better, just this moment alone makes VMJ looks like a virtual character.

So what someone wants to prove – that some dancer was used, that there’s no virtual anything, or just that someone tried to fool us with an illusion? (the last one sounds like a joke, I know)

It would be nice to hear a promotion like “almost magic” anyway.

And one more thing, if there was no animation or motion capture involved then ALL the information that creators told us about layers and other aspects of production is a lie too ...?
 
the estate are continuing to build Michaels brand, even after death. They are releasing music that will play in clubs just now, along with releasing rare demos for older fans. People may not agree with everything they are doing, but I can say over the years, there have always been things people haven't agreed with when it came to Michael, but his team and Michael himself knew what they wanted to achieve. Michael placed his trust in the people running his estate, Im sure he would be happy with the album released, and would stamp his seal of approval on the new tracks.

There will always be a split among fans when it comes to things like this, just like the Wembley dvd, we all love it. Im positive Michael would have hated it!
 
I have been reading this thread for awhile and I have to ask, what are you guys arguing about? Are you arguing whether virtual Michael was done with motion-caption or was it all CGI? I hope we are not still talking about them putting a head on a imposter since if they were going to do that, they wouldn't need dance videos as references. They also specially said that Michael was on a plane with multiple layers, which is unnecessary if they just used an imposter.

Now that I think about, putting a Michael head on an imposter may not work. With Tupac, he wasn't really moving just bobbing his head and even then the head floated slightly. Having an imposter who moved and danced across stage with a Michael head probably couldn't happen because the head wouldn't be able to keep up with the body.

Personally to me, that is a ridiculous notion :D Putting a CGI head on a real body, LOL :D Imagine the head floating away.. :D If you see the performance there was also a neck attached to the body by the way and it was turning and doing everything LOL :p
I don't think that's the case, you ONLY animate the whole body, you don't leave parts of it. I don't think something like this has been even done or will be done. This idea only came up when people needed to maintain their argument by sticking to the "there was an impersonator" onstage during the performance. :D I think we are clear on that fact, it WAS only CGI MJ up there, you just have to see the behind the scenes footage posted recently. They were just showing the stage setup and the REAL dancers. By that time, the virtual MJ was already created and being played on the screen. The virtual MJ was handled by an entirely different team. They used MJ's images to construct the virtual MJ and his dance movements were provided by the choreographers.
 
Can you point me to the article or where ever you found that claim, because I don't remember seeing it anywhere?
and who is "they" you are talking about?



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?

I have also asked for a link to where the estate made these claims - not the 'source' claims.

But at the end of the day, an impersonator, in the flesh didn't walk out on stage it was an illusion of the image of Michael.

Since when was a magician or producer or anyone who creates an illusion obligated to tell the secret of how it was created. How it was created isn't a moral issue because it is just an illusion .. A fantasy .. Xscapism.. Entertainment.. A magician isn't going to tell you "I made a hologram of an elephant disappear on stage." They say they say I made an Elephant disappear ..... so then we should go after the magician and say. You are a liar your performance is evil .. you didn;t reveal to us the secret that it was was just a hologram elephant or a CGI or an elephant impersonator .. :giggle:

^^^^^ I said something something similar a few pages back.

If you dissect any illusion you lose the magic and will always feel a little cheated. :)

This research and thread seems to have only one direction which is to prove the accusation of lying made by some towards Michael's estate, is this thread going to become The Great Illusion Debate?
 
Since when was a magician or producer or anyone who creates an illusion obligated to tell the secret of how it was created. How it was created isn't a moral issue because it is just an illusion .. A fantasy .. Xscapism.. Entertainment.. A magician isn't going to tell you "I made a hologram of an elephant disappear on stage." They say they say I made an Elephant disappear ..... so then we should go after the magician and say. You are a liar your performance is evil .. you didn;t reveal to us the secret that it was was just a hologram elephant or a CGI or an elephant impersonator .. :giggle:

I'd really want to see a videos that shows the differences of a hologram elephant and an elephant impersonator:rollin:
 
To me it's not that of a big deal. To have 3 fake songs in MJ's official catalogue is. This is not. I wasn't impressed and I didn't think it looked or moved like Michael, but it's no biggie. This is an illusion and everyone is aware that it is. Whether an impersonator was involved in its creation? Probably was - just like in every other such illusion. The 2Pac one, the Elvis one... Unless they are making such an illusion about a living artist, I think it's difficult to create such an illusion without the involvement of an impersonator.

BTW, Michael himself used impersonators in his works. Should we also throw a tantrum about the rocket man at the end of the Dangerous tour shows not being Michael? OMG, it wasn't really Michael flying out of the stadium, I feel so betrayed! Or Jamie King and not Michael dancing during Thriller during the same shows once the warewolf mask was on (so that Michael run to his starting position for the next song)... Or the Who Is It video having an impersonator in it in certain scenes...

And I agree with Qbee, it's nonsense that some people expect that it should be revealed to the public how an illusion was created. A magician doesn't reveal his tricks either. Everyone knows it's a trick and it's "cheating" in some kind of way, but that's why it's called an illusion.
 
^^ 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.

There is no illusion.

The pretty much process was the following:
- They filmed Valentino in chroma key along with some props.
- They filmed the dancers in the same way
- They put the layers together in a digital compositing software adding a background
- They unsuccesfull tried to mask Valentino's face
- They addes some visual filters (GLOW for example) over the production.
- They projected the video on a screen just as a movie on the cinema.

That's how was done!

The "virtual" and "Computer generated" look of the projected movie was due to visual filters applied in compositing. Just like you can do it in Photoshop over a picture.... from sharpnes and glow to anything and any filter you want.
The fact you can do a video look like a fantasy fairytale doesn't mean that video was computer generated.

There is no magic. There is no illusion.
I don't even know why they called ILLUSION. They call it hologram... they call it virtual MJ... they call it projection... now they call it ILLUSION! All this in just one week.

No, they just hired Valentino.... cause you know what?
Doing a CGI Michael Jackson is 20 times more expensive than hiring a cheap body! Can't find any reason! IMO
 
BTW, Michael himself used impersonators in his works. Should we also throw a tantrum about the rocket man at the end of the Dangerous tour shows not being Michael? OMG, it wasn't really Michael flying out of the stadium, I feel so betrayed! Or Jamie King and not Michael dancing during Thriller during the same shows once the warewolf mask was on (so that Michael run to his starting position for the next song)... Or the Who Is It video having an impersonator in it in certain scenes...
I agree :yes: Even in the Michael Jackson Experience (I think?) The fact remains whether impersonator or not, I still believe it was an animation fault. There are many big-budgeted movies which despite motion capture, the characters didn't click with the audience. Notably "Final Fantasy : Spirits Within" (pulse was involved with this project too), and "Beowulf" where the characters just looked plain awkward and robotic in their movement. Its a difficult task to reproduce 100% human likeness through animation and CGI (again, this is called trying to cross the UNCANNY VALLEY). I feel they needed to devote more time, but they had deadline constraints as well. In fact, if they did manage to achieve a perfect looking CGI MJ it would be a ground-breaking achievement. This is something that has been rarely achieved, to create an exact human likeness CGI and make it believable (even in Avatar they had to create Na'vi's).
And I agree with Qbee, it's nonsense that some people expect that it should be revealed to the public how an illusion was created. A magician doesn't reveal his tricks either. Everyone knows it's a trick and it's "cheating" in some kind of way, but that's why it's called an illusion.

I am actually surprised they revealed so much, including the stage design. The length they are going for the fans. Normally few technical details are revealed.
 
If they tour with this, are you not just paying obscene prices to watch an impersonator?
 
There is no illusion.
You can create an illusion / a fantasy MJ with a hologram with a CGI or with with a human. No matter how they created it they produced an illusion of MJ being on stage. Same as they created an illusion of Tupac being on stage.
 
Personally to me, that is a ridiculous notion :D Putting a CGI head on a real body, LOL :D Imagine the head floating away.. :D If you see the performance there was also a neck attached to the body by the way and it was turning and doing everything LOL :p
I don't think that's the case, you ONLY animate the whole body, you don't leave parts of it. I don't think something like this has been even done or will be done. This idea only came up when people needed to maintain their argument by sticking to the "there was an impersonator" onstage during the performance. :D I think we are clear on that fact, it WAS only CGI MJ up there, you just have to see the behind the scenes footage posted recently. They were just showing the stage setup and the REAL dancers. By that time, the virtual MJ was already created and being played on the screen. The virtual MJ was handled by an entirely different team. They used MJ's images to construct the virtual MJ and his dance movements were provided by the choreographers.

Oh, I agree with the above. I find it highly unlikely that an impersonator was used, except for maybe the motion-caption which they may have used to get Micahael's movement while dancing. Like so many others here, I am just confuse why it would have made a different if they did used an impersonator on top of the creators of the hologram more-or-less saying how they did it and using an impersonator would have been impractical. As I said, I don't think a virtual Michael's head could have kept up with a person dancing on stage if Tupac couldn't keep his head floating while he was just standing there bobbing.

Also, Michael was clearly 2D when the song started so even if an imposter was used, a virtual Michael was there before the stepped out of the scene.

And the people who made virtual Michael outright said they were not trying to recreate Michael (make him looked like a real human). So even when they work out the bugs, virtual Michael is not going to look like Michael Jackson because they want to avoid the dreaded Uncanny Valley.
 
If they tour with this, are you not just paying obscene prices to watch an impersonator?

It's an imposter either way, except one is a flesh and blood human and one is a CGI image made in a computer. Which one people will pay money to see is a personal choice, but they are both impersonators.
 
Looking at it, i thought the whole "MJ" was CGI. But with the Microsoft Kinect technology it will be possible to do an "Avatar" style MJ for the future, they just need to nail the face and expressions
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top