The Ultimate Superheroines Forum

Take a peek at this. They put Gadot into many classic WW scenes!

damnt I cant see :/

Gadot's face on Carter's body. Yeah I'd got for that. Great job!

A really good job indeed! I wonder what Gal thinks if she see this....
An impressive but scary technology....there should be a law that deepfakes must always be watermarked or something like that (or an introduction/hint text at the start).
Luckily the systems to reveal deep fakes are improving too.

Amazing but I wish he /they had done some of the peril shots. I was all hyped up for a murderous missile bit of Gadot bondage

I am always deeply torn by this technology. On the one hand it's cool when used as a bit of fun, or even as a what-if tool but the power to be able to so convincingly substitute one person for another has to be seen as dangerous and open to abuse too.

Whoever did this work has titled their work correctly of course and as a tech-demo of sorts it certainly shows they did a great job and I do genuinely like what they created. But, where could it end? Could someone make a whole episode, or a whole bootlegged season of WW like this? In that circumstance it's a little disrespectful to Lynda Carter, right? It's her body and while it would be GG's face it's a reproduction of LC's expressiveness that is underneath, there are many flashes where you just know LC is the source of GGs performance.

The one area where I think Deepfake will do well is when perhaps you have an aging issue, or actor passed away sort of situation. The ROGUE ONE version of Grand Moff Tarkin and Leia was done as Mo-cap / CGI and with great effort. Even now, relatively soon after its production examples of a Deepfake alternative have appeared (and probably on a considerably smaller budget) and to be honest, look better than the version presented on film. However, I think even like this you should limit things to cameos - a limit they kept to I think with Leia but overstepped with Tarkin. While Peter Cushing's estate was happy to help let the movie series bridge the gap with his presence I think it was more akin to a minor role than just a mere cameo.

Anyway, I am rambling - yes I liked this demo and agree with Tally ... time to get GGWW chained to the cell floor please!

I've seen a few of these deep fakes and been amazed. This one was weird, I guess because I'm familiar with all the source material. I definitely had an uncanny valley type of reaction to it.

It's a fun idea, but IMHO it didn't really work.

The main problem is that Gal and Lynda Carter have different body types and face shapes. They were basically pasting Gadot's eyes nose and mouth onto Carter's face. The result didn't really look like Gal Gadot. At best, it looks like some third actress that is a hybrid of the two. At worst, it either looks completely like Lynda Carter (any profile shot), or it REALLY looks like a cut and paste job.

Of course, this is only 2020. What will this tech be like in five years?

People - Deep fakes will be used to cause all sorts of problems in politics and spying!
Real world - Deep fakes used for porn and fetishes.

It's very impressive but I can't help feeling cyncial about the motivation behind it. It's as if they trying to show Gal is better looking. You might say this is projection on my part. Well, maybe, but look at how in the comparisions Gal's face is perfectly symmetrical and lighted. Lynda's is live as it was shot. I don't believe Gal can compete with Lynda's beauty in her prime from what I've seen on screen...

Correction: Nobody can compete with Lynda in her prime

Deceiver wrote: ↑

3 years ago

It's very impressive but I can't help feeling cyncial about the motivation behind it. It's as if they trying to show Gal is better looking. You might say this is projection on my part. Well, maybe, but look at how in the comparisions Gal's face is perfectly symmetrical and lighted. Lynda's is live as it was shot. I don't believe Gal can compete with Lynda's beauty in her prime from what I've seen on screen...

Hmmm is this meant to imply that Gadot ISN'T good looking because her face isn't perfectly symmetrical or lightened? Or do you just mean that your personal preference is for the classic 1960's sensibilities of beauty and you PREFER Mrs. Carter? Sentence structure has me a mite confused... I feel you probably mean the latter but even so... I'd agree on the front that Gadot doesn't NEED a lighter skin tone or more symmetry to be beautiful... but that she 'isn't Lynda Carter' isn't really lost on anybody I don't think.

Just cause I think it ought be said... It takes cynicism to read cynicism. That's not a jab or anything, it's valuable to know where cynicism exists so as not to make a fool out of oneself on occasion... but it means that you start to read a LOT of false positives as well, and you can take that to the bank from this world class pessimist right here (um... I mean me). Can't we just enjoy the manip without deciding it means something that isn't implied or even textual? Take care that interpretation of Art often says more about the observer than the artist... who ordinarily means to imply a LOT LESS in their work than the mass of consumers tend to derive from the work... it's why nobody should be on Twitter.

Femina wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Hmmm is this meant to imply that Gadot ISN'T good looking because her face isn't perfectly symmetrical or lightened? Or do you just mean that your personal preference is for the classic 1960's sensibilities of beauty and you PREFER Mrs. Carter?

It's a no, and another no; it must be a very confusing sentence structure! Both women are beautiful. They wouldn't have been cast as Wonder Woman otherwise. I'm saying the artist has selected symmetrical facial expressions from Gal, and her colour has balanced lighting. It's Lynda who compares unfavourably due to her shooting the scene for real.

Femina wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Just cause I think it ought be said... It takes cynicism to read cynicism. That's not a jab or anything, it's valuable to know where cynicism exists so as not to make a fool out of oneself on occasion... but it means that you start to read a LOT of false positives as well, and you can take that to the bank from this world class pessimist right here (um... I mean me). Can't we just enjoy the manip without deciding it means something that isn't implied or even textual? Take care that interpretation of Art often says more about the observer than the artist... who ordinarily means to imply a LOT LESS in their work than the mass of consumers tend to derive from the work... it's why nobody should be on Twitter.

In the last few sentences, you're stating what I touched on in my original post. I meant projection in the psychological sense - I wasn't talking about a movie projection...

Deceiver wrote: ↑

3 years ago

It's a no, and another no; it must be a very confusing sentence structure! Both women are beautiful. They wouldn't have been cast as Wonder Woman otherwise. I'm saying the artist has selected symmetrical facial expressions from Gal, and her colour has balanced lighting. It's Lynda who compares unfavourably due to her shooting the scene for real.

Ah I gotcha.

That's fairly ordinary in Manips though from what I understand. I think you want to pick your shots REAL carefully in order to make them blend properly.

Like... an image of Carter looking directly ahead vs Gadot looking EVEN MINUTELY off to the side will make the manip look completely crap. So you have to go for as identically posed shots as humanly possible... and then you DO have to blend the skin colors. Usually the most commonly photographed options for this kind of thing is when the models are looking straight on with as little emotion as possible. After that you kind of have to pick one of the models skin tones... though I'd personally probably opt for the central face's skin tone as opposed to the exterior skin tone... but like... idk the tools available to the artist here... I've not ever actually DONE a manip... but I have had instances of requiring touchups to my own work that involve blending colors and hiding dark splotches and overlapping cut in from variable images.

2 points Gadot does not fit in the Classic WW costume that was my big objection when she was cast. I was happy they were able to change the classic but still make it credible.

2nd where are the knockout scenes?

Femina wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Like... an image of Carter looking directly ahead vs Gadot looking EVEN MINUTELY off to the side will make the manip look completely crap. So you have to go for as identically posed shots as humanly possible... and then you DO have to blend the skin colors. Usually the most commonly photographed options for this kind of thing is when the models are looking straight on with as little emotion as possible. After that you kind of have to pick one of the models skin tones... though I'd personally probably opt for the central face's skin tone as opposed to the exterior skin tone... but like... idk the tools available to the artist here... I've not ever actually DONE a manip... but I have had instances of requiring touchups to my own work that involve blending colors and hiding dark splotches and overlapping cut in from variable images.

Thanks for explaining. In that case, I don't believe there was any motivation to make Lynda look worse by comparison.

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

3 years ago

2nd where are the knockout scenes?

Possibly deep fake can't work with something over the face.

R5

R5

Hmm wonder why the studios don't do this. Still though her voice gives away age.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Hmm wonder why the studios don't do this. Still though her voice gives away age.

Cause its expensive. The de-aging stuff is um... getting there, but you're still adding a ton to the post process of your film to de age just ONE of your actors. So far Sam Jackson's the only one whose recieved the treatment and that was cause Disney gets the big bucks.

I doubt DC is in the camp for that just yet.

Also why can't she just be old. Is it so bad that she makes an appearance as her current self

Femina wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Cause its expensive. The de-aging stuff is um... getting there, but you're still adding a ton to the post process of your film to de age just ONE of your actors. So far Sam Jackson's the only one whose recieved the treatment and that was cause Disney gets the big bucks.

I doubt DC is in the camp for that just yet.

There's Scorsese’s The Irishman, which de-aged three actors for significant parts of the film (1750 shots.) The FX were of variable quality, but then again the system was working without any reference markers on the face or any other VFX aids, as the director didn't want the technology to get in the way of the actor's performances.

I think the nice thing about this technology is it has the chance to allow aging actors to return to long standing franchises without having to recast their character. A bit like the way a certain Star Wars character was able to make a recent appearance looking just like they did in the 70s/80s. So providing it is used respectfully, it can actually open up storytelling options previously difficult to do.

R5

Damselbinder wrote: ↑

3 years ago

Also why can't she just be old. Is it so bad that she makes an appearance as her current self

Supposedly Amazons age slower. But yeah she could be old.