Talk:De-aging in film and television

Background information

There is abundant background information in the references with the specific films that can be used to discuss in general how de-aging works. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ordering

I listed the films alphabetically because there is strong precedent for this and because I had checked with other WikiProject Film editors (in regard to another list I made) about whether alphabetical or by year is preferred. I can't find the discussion right now but will link to it when I do. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

X-Men

I may be wrong, but wasn't Hugh Jackman de-aged in that one where Xavier and Magneto meet him at a bar? --uKER (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Upon second thought, he was probably de-aged just via makeup. That brings me to think that maybe we should make the article more clearly about digital de-aging. --uKER (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

De-aging vs digital actors

What is the exact difference between the two? My take would be saying that if you have a digital actor that had de-aging applied, it qualifies, even if the actual actor had little to no participation (think Terminator Salvation. Are we on the same page? --uKER (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the area may be blurred. Rogue One is an example where it was more about digital actors than de-aging. Terminator Genisys seems to be in a gray area too (check the reference for details on that). I haven't really processed all of the context available, but we can expand the prose to talk about that. We could also see about putting some films in a "See also" section, depending on whatever criteria we can determine for making the distinction. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, another take on the definition could be whether it was digital makeup or a wholly artificial model. Kinda hard to decide. --uKER (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

De-aging is by definition the reversing of the aging process, Making something or someone look younger. Digital actor or real actor, it makes no difference as the person's likeness is of an age in the past that can only be achieved through de-aging. Salvation and genysis are as valid as avengers endgame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batfinkskinner (talk • contribs) 17:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. If a younger character is portrayed through CGI and body doubles, with no involvement from the original actor, then there's no de-aging involved. I just added a "Virtual actors" section to list films in this category. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced listings

I removed unsourced listings as seen here, but listings can be restored if there are sources discussing de-aging in that particular film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Aquaman

Surprised to find so few stories out there about the de-aging of a couple of the actors in Aquaman, but the following might be enough: This Metro review explicitly mentions the actors and characters the process is used on. Now Metro isn't the best source, but this interview with James Wan at least confirms the process took place, without explicitly naming anyone, and this article adds weight for one of the characters at least (though I'm unfamiliar with how reliable that site is). All the best, Steve ^T • C 21:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Steve! Thanks for sharing. I can add it when I have time, but you are welcome to beat me to it. Hope all is well with you. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Terminator: Genisys and Twin Peaks

What we saw in Terminator: Genisys was a young bodybuilder stand-in who digitally had Arnie's fully 3D-animated 1984 head put on his shoulders (a lot like we'd already seen it done in Terminator: Salvation). What we saw in Twin Peaks was partly just a few original shots and outtakes from Fire Walk With Me (1992), and partly a younger actress who didn't look much like Sheryl Lee, with no digital effects applied on her looks whatsoever. I'd call both cases questionable whether they're even eligible for this article. --2003:EF:13C6:FE74:C885:B8AD:6B3F:5602 (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Repetitive Text?

Can we do without every description field starting with "In this insert_genre_here film"? Reading through the page, the repetitive text seems unnecessary. dstumme (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have attempted to amend the repetitiveness of the movie descriptions. Batfinkskinner (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have attempted to amend the repetitiveness of the movie descriptions. Batfinkskinner (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to De-aging in film and television at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

---

De-aging in motion pictures and television → De-aging – Per WP:PRECISION, since the term redirects here. Besides, de-aging only applies to works of fiction and not real life. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support, although I don't necessarily think fiction is the only use of the term, I'm sure there's a lot of scientific studies into the feasiblity of de-aging in organisms.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Plastic surgery and botox also count as "de-aging", though that isn't discussed here. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is unambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Current title is accurate and unambiguous. Proposed title isn't clear to me at all that it would be about de-aging in TV and film. Lewisguile (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Though, I'd probably support De-aging in film and TV over De-aging in motion pictures and television. Lewisguile (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy to support De-aging in film and television, preferring to expand the abbreviation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as nominated, support alternatives De-aging in film and television / TV with no preference to television or TV. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 14:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisted to give time for discussion of alternatives proposed ASUKITE 14:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support the alternative De-aging in film and television (just de-aging although unambiguous among articles, it doesn't distinguish[] it from other subjects and I think having the additional bit clearly defines its scope and makes it more recognizable.) Film is better than "motion pictures" per consistency. My preference of television over TV isn't strong. Skynxnex (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.