Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Create Your Favorite Actor From Nothing But Photos (i-programmer.info)

Posted by timothy on from the ok-and-some-dna dept.

mikejuk writes: If you always wanted to see John Wayne play the lead in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, you might not have to wait much longer. A University of Washington team has essentially reversed engineered what makes an actor recognizable as that actor, or as the title of the paper puts it, "What Makes Tom Hanks Look Like Tom Hanks." It explains how using nothing but photos and videos from the web it is possible to create an actor puppet that follows the expressions of a driver (i.e. a puppeteer). Now you really can see actors perform things they never got around to performing. The model of the "puppet" is first created using photos from the web. The next stage is to analyze a video of the "driver", i.e. to work out the deformations in the puppet needed to make it follow the driver. ... What they discovered: "After a great deal of experimentation, we obtained surprisingly convincing results using the following simple recipe: use actor B's shape, B's texture, and A's motion (adjusted for the geometry of B's face)."

63 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. I think this was already done before... by TWX · · Score: 1

    ...based on the various ways that Kim Cattrall the Vulcan and Kim Cattrall the Coach, Kim Cattrall the seductress, Kim Cattrall the slutty friend, etc have been collaged together...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:I think this was already done before... by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      For that matter, Tom Hanks animated himself with a somewhat different technique, and the picture died a horrible death in the Uncanny Valley.

  2. Don't beat around the bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why are we even pretending this is intended for anything but the porn industry? Just grab some pictures of that girl from Chem class you have a crush on, and suddenly you can have videos of her doing whatever you want.

  3. I'd like to see... by Jay+Maynard · · Score: 2

    ...John Wayne in Blazing Saddles, as Mel Brooks wanted.

    --
    Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
    1. Re:I'd like to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Donald Trump in "A Clockwork Orange".

    2. Re:I'd like to see... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Donald Trump in "A Clockwork Orange".

      As what, the giant plastic phallus?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:I'd like to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      His oompa-loompa face plastered on Alex's codpiece.

    4. Re:I'd like to see... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      . . . and starring Hilary Clinton . . . as "The Beaver" . . .

      Although, I don't think anyone here is old enough to get that joke . . .

      "Gee, Wally, we're about to start WWIII . . . should we ask Eddie Haskell what to do . . . ?"

      Donald Trump would be "Dr. Smith" from the original "Lost in Space" TV series.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  4. Failed Actors by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    An actor who I 'recognize' is an actor who has failed at their job. The job of an actor is to take on a role, and part of that process is immersing themselves in the role. If I see a 'star' actor and not the character being portrayed, the aesthetic distance has been broken and the actor has failed.

    1. Re:Failed Actors by ranton · · Score: 1, Insightful

      An actor who I 'recognize' is an actor who has failed at their job. The job of an actor is to take on a role, and part of that process is immersing themselves in the role. If I see a 'star' actor and not the character being portrayed, the aesthetic distance has been broken and the actor has failed.

      But if you are interested in creating a sequel or some other derivative work involving a character, you do want to be able to recognize that character.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    2. Re:Failed Actors by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      A good actor is not a robot reciting lines, and a role is not some sort of hole into which a peg (actor) must fit precisely and in one way only. Part of what makes a good actor good is the ability to provide an interpretation of a role.

      Roger Moore was actually the first choice for the role of James Bond in Dr No. Sean Connery got the role instead, and did a fine job of it. But it would be interesting to see how Roger would have done that film.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Failed Actors by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An actor who I 'recognize' is an actor who has failed at their job. The job of an actor is to take on a role, and part of that process is immersing themselves in the role. If I see a 'star' actor and not the character being portrayed, the aesthetic distance has been broken and the actor has failed.

      No offense, but your views on the matter don't seem to be very representative as there's a ton of decent actors who'd do just as good an acting job as the stars and cheaper too, but we seem to prefer the same known faces we've seen in other movies. Because no matter how well they act the role it's pretty glaringly obvious that an "identical twin" just appeared in a different story universe, regardless of make-up and such.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Failed Actors by edittard · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I don't know what your native language is, but the post you're replying to was in what we call English.

      In that language "character" is much closer to "role" than it is to "actor".

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    5. Re:Failed Actors by TWX · · Score: 1

      An actor who I 'recognize' is an actor who has failed at their job. The job of an actor is to take on a role, and part of that process is immersing themselves in the role. If I see a 'star' actor and not the character being portrayed, the aesthetic distance has been broken and the actor has failed.

      If you enjoy the performance then the actor has succeeded. If you believe the character then the actor has succeeded. One does not necessarily require the other. Bob Hope, Dorothy Lamour, and Bing Crosby hammed it up essentially as themselves in seven The Road To... movies even though their characters in the movies were not the same characters through the series. In contrast Jennifer Connelly's performances in many of her movies are distinct and well performed even if it's difficult to call some movies like Requiem for a Dream enjoyable.

      Many of the most renowned actors essentially play the same role in their films, and many actors that meld-into the films often are relegated to character-actor status and aren't widely popular or known.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Failed Actors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or your native tongue of 'I am a douche-bag who nitpicks stupid shit'.

      Grammar and spelling are the fallback of those who have a poor argument.

    7. Re:Failed Actors by BlueLightning · · Score: 1

      Roger Moore was actually the first choice for the role of James Bond in Dr No. Sean Connery got the role instead, and did a fine job of it. But it would be interesting to see how Roger would have done that film.

      Except you wouldn't get that with this technique - all you'd get is Sean Connery wearing a mask of Roger Moore's face. A pretty convincing one, but a mask nonetheless.

    8. Re:Failed Actors by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > An actor who I 'recognize' is an actor who has failed at their job.

      I'm sad you are being modded down a bit because I think your response is interesting for sure.

      As has been pointed out- this is NOT the majority opinion. And frankly, it isn't even mine. If you put Sylvester Stallone holding a gun on the poster, I'm going to see that movie in the theater on opening week. Same with any of the action stars I like. In my opinion, movies that exist to tell a specific story are the exception, and they certainly don't need name brand actors, or actors that "always play the same role", but if it's a movie that falls into the more general template of "vehicle to showcase Vin Diesel punching people", then the star is quite literally the point, and if the movie happens to actually be good aside from that, then awesome. But it's not a requirement.

    9. Re:Failed Actors by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Interesting

      An actor who I 'recognize' is an actor who has failed at their job.

      Huh? I'm not saying the LoTR films are the bestest thing evaaaah. But I can clearly see that Gandalf is, in his spare time, Sir Ian McKellen - even if I'm not going "crikey, that's Sir Ian McKellen!" every time he pops up.

      So I recognised him. Does that mean he's failed?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Failed Actors by pjt33 · · Score: 2

      My word, these Sir Ian refugees get everywhere. Even Middle Earth, you say?

    11. Re:Failed Actors by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct about that.

      (I'll quit daydreaming now.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re:Failed Actors by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I don't watch a lot of movies or television but I watch some documentaries - quite a few of those. Anyhow, on the movie front, there's a method actor who was in Master and Commander whom I'm told goes quite a ways to get into character. He did, for the movie mentioned, learn to actually captain a ship, play a violin, and spent like a year (or some period of time) getting into character by staying in that character as preparation for the role.

      He's done other works but, as I said, I can't think of any at the moment. I'm also too lazy to... Oh, Russel Crowe maybe? He might be the guy? I'm sure he's in other things that I've watched but I don't really remember the names of actors and movies all that well. Books are the same, shortly after I've read them they escape my memory until I reread them. I may even forget the title of a book while I'm reading it. Something clicks if I'm doing something scholarly, an effort to learn, and then I retain it but if I'm reading or watching it's a bit different.

      Anyhow, to the point! The point is, he's actually a really good actor from what I've seen. He is his character and is pretty deep. I think I may have actually seen a documentary specifically about him? It might just have been about method actors, I don't really recall. They say that Depp is as good (I think that's his name - does a lot of Burton's work) but I don't really agree. Depp's a fine actor and all but he just doesn't seem as 'in character' as Crowe. Depp is a little of Depp in any of the roles that I'm familiar with (I admit that's few) but Crowe is not Crowe in every role.

      Oddly, Tony Robinson (name?) seems to be a good actor. I've seen him in a few things beyond his archeology series and he's pretty good. It took me a minute to pick him out of Hogswatch and that was knowing that he was in the movie. It wasn't really makeup, he was just in character.

      You should probably take my opinions on actors and movies with a grain of salt. I'm certainly not a huge fan and don't really spend much time learning their names or anything about them. Some of it sticks but that's purely incidental and not intentional. The two leads in Seven Years in Tibet were pretty good. The work done in the movie about the Boston gangster and police detective was a good movie, I've forgotten the name. Hmm... Meet Joe Black was pretty good. Those are a few that I can think of where the actors were pretty well steeped in their roles and, now that you mention it, that might be why I liked them.

      I am, of course, open to suggestions. I'll be headed to Florida this week (finally getting out of D.C.) so I should be able to have time to watch a few good flicks shortly.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:Failed Actors by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something or are you saying the same thing they said?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:Failed Actors by grcumb · · Score: 1

      My word, these Sir Ian refugees get everywhere. Even Middle Earth, you say?

      That was way too subtle and clever. Good god, man, have you forgotten where you are?

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    15. Re:Failed Actors by westlake · · Score: 1

      No offense, but your views on the matter don't seem to be very representative as there's a ton of decent actors who'd do just as good an acting job as the stars and cheaper too, but we seem to prefer the same known faces we've seen in other movies.

      The presence and impact of an actor is cumulative. Try to imagine casting any one of these classic westerns without John Wayne in the lead role: Stagecoach, Fort Apache, She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, Rio Bravo, The Searchers. Each builds on what came before.

    16. Re:Failed Actors by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If I see a 'star' actor and not the character being portrayed, the aesthetic distance has been broken and the actor has failed.

      "John Wayne" was very much a character. The actor playing him was named Marion Morrison. I suspect it's this way for most stars.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    17. Re:Failed Actors by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. The Dr. Who and James Bond franchises, for two long-running examples, have succeeded despite having multiple different actors play the same character.

      Mind, I'm convinced that 007 is really a Time Lord....

      --
      -- Alastair
    18. Re:Failed Actors by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      But it would be interesting to see how Roger would have done that film.

      Like a car in the rain? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Failed Actors by ranton · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. The Dr. Who and James Bond franchises, for two long-running examples, have succeeded despite having multiple different actors play the same character.

      Mind, I'm convinced that 007 is really a Time Lord....

      There is a difference between succeeding in the face of adversity and not having adversity in the first place. Just because franchises have found a way to work around the problem of changing actors does not mean changing actors is some beneficial thing. It is far more common for movie scripts to simply be scrapped because they couldn't get the actors together than it is for movies to successfully change their main cast.

      There would still be the possibility for reboots or other creative mechanisms to change actors frequently (like Dr. Who). This technology would be used the other 80% of instances ([/MadeUpStatistic]) where neither of those options is as desirable as simply having the same actor.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    20. Re:Failed Actors by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Dr. Who came up with a unique way to explain why his face changes through the course of the series that makes sense within the series. For this reason, the changing of the actors and Dr. Who's personality is explicitly written into the role.

      James Bond on the other hand, while the explanation isn't explicitly cannon, had a workable one that could explain the change in character that would assist in the audience's suspension of disbelief. This one was brought up by a friend of mine who is a tremendous Bond fanatic, and I have to admit, re-watching the Bond films with this in mind actually helped my appreciation of the films (well, except for Skyfall... that one broke the suspension of disbelief I had using this method). The explanation was that Bond was actually a pseudonym for the Agent. When an agent was assigned the 007 number, the name came with it. Of course, he also had this irrational love for Sean Connery and he brought the John Patrick Mason character from "The Rock" into the 007 franchise using this explanation (according to him Mason was supposed to be Connery's Bond after having been captured by American Intelligence and sent to Alcatraz as a political prisoner). My thoughts on that one is my friend was just using that to excuse the fact the only role that Connery has ever played in any movie he's ever done was Connery.

    21. Re:Failed Actors by edittard · · Score: 1

      Watched some old BBC Shakespeare stuff recently. Did it bother me that Dick The Shit looked different to Gloucester from Henry VI Part 3? Not a whit.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  5. the illusion of truth by swell · · Score: 1

    "What you are about to see is a true story. Only the names and faces and backgrounds and timelines have been changed to protect the innocent..."

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  6. Two uses: political satire and something else by John+Allsup · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can see two uses for this tech: political satire (making politicians visibly move like the puppets they often are) and a certain slightly naughtier sort of entertainment.

    --
    John_Chalisque
    1. Re:Two uses: political satire and something else by PPH · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "slightly"?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Two uses: political satire and something else by SuperDre · · Score: 1

      Yes it could be possible, but I think you're getting yourself into a lot of trouble if you are gonna use this technology without the permission of the original person.. Even though the person might be a public figure, it doesn't mean you can just take his/her 'image' and do whatever you want to do with it..

  7. All about sequels by crow · · Score: 1

    This is all about producing new content with old characters. Sometimes using a replacement is the only option, as the current actor is dead or no longer fits the part (like new episodes of the original Star Trek or old Doctor Who). Or perhaps the Disney model of making low-budget direct-to-video sequels is another application.

    The important point for the entertainment industry now is to anticipate the technology and to add the future use into the contract negotiations now.

    1. Re:All about sequels by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that some actors are very good at expressing themselves non-verbally. Replacing them with another actor and putting a skin over the new actor doesn't capture those expressions so you lose what makes the original actor special.

    2. Re: All about sequels by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Tom Baker was Dr Who just a few months back. Well, all right, they never came out and said he was the Doctor, just strongly implied it.

      But it wouldn't surprise me if the BBC were early adopters of the technology. Loved the scene where Clara Oswald directs the first doctor (William Hartnell) to choose the other Tardis, with the busted chameleon circuit.

      A good actor can play another actor playing a role. Dr. Who has done this a few times. In the early scenes of The Man From UNCLE movie, Henry Cavill did a great job of channelling Robert Vaughn playing Napoleon Solo. But I'm glad they didn't put Vaughn's face on him, or try to hew too closely to the original actors' characters.

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re: All about sequels by omnichad · · Score: 1

      This was my first thought (except for the Doctor part).

  8. What Makes Tom Hanks Look Like Tom Hanks. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    What Makes Tom Hanks Look Like Tom Hanks.

    Is it the really long neck?

    I was watching "Band Of Brothers" the other day. If anything, his son looks even weirder.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  9. not surprising by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    That sound you just heard was the Screen Actors' Guild shitting their pants.

    Expect soon to see lobbyists' tame legislators writing laws prohibiting this.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:not surprising by CrankyFool · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be against those laws.

      Who owns your face? Who has the right to decide what films your face will be in? Any world where the answer is "anyone who downloaded a few pictures of you from the internet and now has you starring in porn they're selling to your community" is a world I don't want to live in.

    2. Re:not surprising by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      That might be wonderful in concept, but Pollyannaish to believe it could be enforceable.

      Is that Tom Hanks' face? By whose standard? If we move the nose 4 pixels to the left and one eye down by 2 pixels, is it still Tom Hanks? What if we pay a Tom Hanks lookalike $100 to shoot HIS face, instead of paying Tom $1 million (or whatever)? What if we just use Tom Hanks, but just put a small mole on his left cheek?

      --
      -Styopa
  10. This is the future of movie-making by Solandri · · Score: 1

    The problem with actors is that after they become famous, they start demanding huge salaries. But if your "actor" is just a product that you hold all the IP rights to, suddenly you can get all the fan obsession (and the money it brings in) without the pesky salary demands. We still have a ways to go - synthetic voice acting (Hatsune Miku's songs are vocaloids) is woefully behind in technology compared to 3D graphics recreating human faces. And movements are still almost always motion-captured. But this is the direction all of this is heading - performers completely produced and controlled by a studio with no real lives of their own.

  11. An interesting application by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Something that would be very neat is when an actor gets older one could have them play a role but use video of them when they were younger to overlay. Actors could go for younger roles or you wouldn't need different actors to play the younger role. Of course it only works for actors who have been working for a long time. Image Arnold being able to play in a new Terminator movie but looking like he did in the second movie. Since it's the same actor you wouldn't have to worry about different mannerisms or facial expressions or the rights to the actor's image. It'd just be a copyright issue for using part of one video in another.

  12. The Running Man... by MastaBaba · · Score: 1

    Remember that scene from The Running Man, where they inserted a digital copy of a real person into a 'live' video, because he didn't want to do his job. Also, conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this.

  13. Re:"we obtained surprisingly convincing results" by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    She would be the donkey of course!

  14. Re:So crappy movie by jjeffries · · Score: 1

    Take that back! Looker is an awesome movie! An awful kind of awesome, but awesome nonetheless.

  15. Uh oh, did someone say "porn"? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    Uh oh, did someone say "porn"? Because I see limitless possibilities for porn using this technique.

    Wanna see Rick Perry bang Rick Santorum?
    Wanna see Fred Phelps having a BDSM tryst with Divine?
    Wanna see Donald Trump going at it with Hillary Clinton?

    (For me, the answer is a resounding "NO!" to all of those, but you know that someone somewhere would go, "Oh yeah, baby...cue it up...")

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Uh oh, did someone say "porn"? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I don't really like either of them but I have this strange thing for Hillary Clinton and Martha Stewart. I've explained it, at length, before. I'd bang them both, at the same time, during Christmas dinner, on the kitchen table, on national television. I don't even find them attractive, really. I don't know what the process is but I've had this going on since the early 1990s. No, I don't understand and I haven't asked a psychiatrist about it. :/

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Uh oh, did someone say "porn"? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      "I'd bang them both, at the same time, during Christmas dinner, on the kitchen table, on national television."

      Lol, it sounds like you've given this more than a little thought. :) I admire your honesty and umm "breadth of range" in terms of acceptable partners.

      As for me...Martha Stewart....maybe.

      Hillary Clinton 20 years ago, probably. There was a time when she was sorta boinkable, but today, errr, she's way outside my goalposts, even if I wasn't happily married.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:Uh oh, did someone say "porn"? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      lol i remember this ... you're sick ..

      Compared to what priests do to children on a daily basis, KGIII's tastes are the practically the definition of "reasonable and healthy".

      He wants to have consensual sex with two women who are media personalities, in a wholesome if somewhat unusual setting. I see nothing wrong with that.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    4. Re:Uh oh, did someone say "porn"? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I no longer try to understand it, I just accept it for what it is.

      And that, my friend, is the secret to living a happy life.

      She asked me, "What do you think they're attractive for, they're old!" I pointed out that I'm nearly forty years her senior. She slapped me on the arm.

      Damn, mine is only 20 years younger than me and when we go out together, the nuclear-grade hate-stares I get from women in the supermarket are un-fucking-mistakeable. The ones they give you would probably turn a battleship to slag.

      But yes, when I tell my wife that "I'm old", she agrees, and then she holds my hand and says, "Yes, you old. All use up. No more good." And then she laughs.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  16. Why not just ask the experts? by macraig · · Score: 1

    There are people who have already "reverse engineered" the appearances and behavioral mannerisms of others, and made long successful careers from it: people like Al Hirschfeld and Rich Little. Why not just ask them how they do it?

  17. Re:So crappy movie by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Max Headroom, 1984

  18. Re:Mildly concerned about abuse by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 1

    If I wasn't before, I'll be questioning the integrity of what I see in videos. Watch Barack Obama as Luke Skywalker? Funny. Watch me in some crime I did not commit? Less funny.

    I've put in a lot of effort over the years staying the hell out of courtrooms, but if I were a judge, I would seriously question ANY photographic evidence these days.

    --
    Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
  19. Beginning of the end for Actors? by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    So, you'll have a scenario where physically attractive candidates are filmed for a day or so going through a standard catalog of expressions, which are then stored then mapped onto performances done by a handful of pro actors, who are never actually seen in the movie. This is not a new thing but may become more pervasive as time goes by. SAG is going to have to come up with some kind of personal likeness IP so the people who are seen on camera are paid by the movie instead of just a flat fee for a couple days' work.

    1. Re:Beginning of the end for Actors? by theronb · · Score: 1

      Then the next step is shooting a variety of location backgrounds and you've got custom movies on demand where you select the stars, the location and paste it all into a stock plot - Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn in Fast & Furious 27: Poughkeepsie.

  20. Re:I tried this by KGIII · · Score: 1

    The first, and probably only, out loud laugh that Slashdot has given me all day. I don't know who they are but I assume they're a pretty actress. Either way, it made me chuckle loud enough for the missus to notice and wonder what was so amusing.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  21. I felt a sudden disturbance... by BoogieChile · · Score: 1

    Ooooh, Natalie Portman, you're in trouble now...

    1. Re:I felt a sudden disturbance... by Crookdotter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, someone who can act will be able to make it look like she can act....

  22. Defendant: I am not the one in the video by yes-but-no · · Score: 2

    So now video evidence in court can be easily challenged. I guess once an event happens, there is no 100% fail-safe way to prove that it did happen. No wonder the world is run by lawyers.

  23. Re:Video by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    It seems to have a bit of a limitation - it can only do people wearing hijabs.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  24. Failure? by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1

    When I see ed Norton fucking, I see brad Pitt.