Jump to content

Resurrecting deceased actors via CGI.... ethical or not ?


the trumpet player 2
 Share

Recommended Posts

Revealing how some in the SW fan community seem more concerned with hopscotching over the grave to produce CG-versions, sound-alike voice actors (or stitched together Fisher performances) all to argue in favor of "telling the story" than leaving a recently departed person's image / memory alone.

 

Star Wars as a franchise has (probably) reached some sort of an impasse--with one of the original actors passing away while this sequel trilogy is in production, there's no way to avoid one of a few negative outcomes:

  1. ​Use a CG Fisher, and it comes off like Disney will do anything to continue making a buck, under the BS notion of maintaining a seamless transition of living actress to CG version.
  2. Write Leia's death into E8 or 9 will be as bad as pinning a "Yes, this happened because Fisher is dead" banner across the screen.
  3. No matter what they do, the sad, sudden passing of Fisher is THE unavoidable shadow over the series that no decent mind can brush aside when watching E8/9.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

I don't know what's wrong but for some reason, Carrie's death has deflated all excitement I had for VIII and IX. I can't explain why. It's not like she had a huge role in VII. But I just feel so meh now.

I definitely want to see VIII, but I do have to admit some of my excitement for seeing it isn't as strong as it was before she passed away. But the main reasons I want to see it was never for Leia, anyway. It was more to see Luke, how they handle the training of Rey and Ren, and most important to me, if Rey is Luke's daughter. If they jerk us around and wait to reveal who her parent(s) are until IX, I am going to be pissed. We found out within 1 movie after the reveal in TESB that Vader was Luke's father for sure, so there is no reason they can't do the same with Rey. This isn't the PT where everyone knew Senator Palpatine was in fact the Emperor/Darth Sidious.

 

That said, there is also an almost morbid curiousity for me to see how they handle Leia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is sad and certainly needs to be done with tact, whatever the decision. It's sad for her family and it's sad for the fans.

 

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with CGI resurrection as long as it's done with good intentions. The argument that Disney would be doing this "to make money" is a poor one. Of course they make money with these films, but the actors, directors, producers, etc. do this to entertain people as well. That's what they're in it for, one hopes. Carrie Fisher signed on to do these films and sure maybe a big payday was part of that decision, but it was also to entertain people and give the fans some Princess Leia again. So how is it wrong to keep moving forward with that? Why would we assume she wouldn't want to see finished what she started?

 

IF Leia was to be involved in a major way in the plot development and climax of Episode 9, I don't think anyone in her family or any of us should have a problem with them using a CGI version of her to finish the story. I would think it's what she planned on doing and it's what she wanted.

They might scale back the number of scenes she appears in and just keep it to the important moments, but I dont think it's unethical at all.

 

If her role was to diminish as the series progresses, and maybe that's always been the plan -- to have the originals pass the torch and then fade into the background, then that should be no problem either.

 

The biggest moral dilemma I can see is if Leia was to die in Episode 9. That could be a bit painful for people, to recreate her only to do a death scene. Oof. That would be cause to have a long discussion with her family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This is sad and certainly needs to be done with tact, whatever the decision. It's sad for her family and it's sad for the fans.

 

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with CGI resurrection as long as it's done with good intentions. The argument that Disney would be doing this "to make money" is a poor one. Of course they make money with these films, but the actors, directors, producers, etc. do this to entertain people as well. That's what they're in it for, one hopes. Carrie Fisher signed on to do these films and sure maybe a big payday was part of that decision, but it was also to entertain people and give the fans some Princess Leia again. So how is it wrong to keep moving forward with that? Why would we assume she wouldn't want to see finished what she started?

Making money is the first and last goal of this kind of film--not pleasing 7-year olds out of the goodness of their hearts. That sentiment probably existed with Lucas during the making of ANH, but now? More about $$$ that an honest attempt to spin a good tale for the kids and the kids at heart.

 

Regarding the "how is it wrong" part--the woman is a little over two months in the ground, and all some can think of is using her image all for the continued profit of a franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making money is the first and last goal of this kind of film--not pleasing 7-year olds out of the goodness of their hearts.

I thought I was fairly clear in differentiating between the goals of the executives and shareholders at Disney and Lucasfilm and the directors, cast, etc. I appreciate a healthy dose of cynicism as much as the next guy, but if you truly believe the only thing on the minds of the latter is making money, I think you might need to dial it down just a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the "how is it wrong" part--the woman is a little over two months in the ground, and all some can think of is using her image all for the continued profit of a franchise.

Well, I thought the question was essentially "is it inherently wrong?" What "some" people may be thinking doesn't make it wrong for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see what's wrong with people being worried about how they will deal with her in Star Wars. It's not disrespectful or unethical. It's just how the world is, it goes on without all of us. For instance, if I died the people at my job would take a couple days, go to the wake and all that but only a few short days later they would turn their attention to how to cover for my no longer being there.

 

Same goes here, Carrie was in the middle of a job when she died. It's normal for a short time later people to think "how are they going to cover for her."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do they go about paying for her image? Does the family get paid? Or does Carries publisher get money for licensing out her image? Or can lucas art just pay the VFX animators and voice actors and pay nothing to her family? How accurate to the actor does a CGI likeness have to be before you have to pay the actor? 100% or 95% could we just CGI a young Harrison ford for Han Solo movie and not get the other young guy, and stiff Harrison ford of any money...

 

I think this issue is more legally complicated than we think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no lawyer, but I'm aware of likeness rights, and actors have already been digitally resurrected many times, often to shill for products (e.g., Audrey Hepburn for chocolate, and Fred Astaire for vacuum cleaners). At least resurrecting an actor to act would be in line with their primary interests. The legal side has likely been worked out already. I imagine there are permissions from and payments to the actor's estate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I forgot about that Audrey Hepburn one....

 

Hrmm.

 

Well I don't know about the ethics of it but resurrecting an actor to sell your chocolate is crass. Resurrecting Carrie Fischer to reprise her role as Leia.. somewhat less crass as she was already bound and involved in the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I forgot about that Audrey Hepburn one....

 

Hrmm.

 

Well I don't know about the ethics of it but resurrecting an actor to sell your chocolate is crass. Resurrecting Carrie Fischer to reprise her role as Leia.. somewhat less crass as she was already bound and involved in the project.

"somewhat" is enough to question the "why" of a CG-Fisher. Its difficult to see some true artistic motive behind doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's difficult to see some true artistic motive behind doing that.

Is it? I found it to be fairly easy. It could maintain the continuity of a storyline that Abrams and co. created and Ms. Fisher herself signed on for and would have followed through to the end if not for her unfortunate passing.

 

Perhaps it's meant to end with the children of Anakin having successfully guided the new generation of heroes to victory, not with their deaths. Or maybe she is a key part of Kylo's story arc,as many suspect. We don't know. If Leia was just to be relegated to some minor support role, I guess it wouldn't be all that necessary to recreate her in CGI, but if she is key to the story, the true artistic motive is slapping us right in the face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Here is something I was thinking while watching the Obi Wan episode of Rebels:

 

At what point do people have a problem with this? What I mean is that in this episode they use CGI to create an Obi Wan Kenobi who is obviously supposed to look like Alec Guinness and they use a voice actor who is supposed to sound like him. Yet no one would ever have an issue with this or call it unethical. Then in TFA they use Alec's own voice from an old recording and no one has a problem with it. However if they used his voice and CGI to place him in a movie with an attempt to make it photo realistic people may have an issue.

 

So the question is, where is this line? Is it simply trying to make it photo realistic? Is it like they say about porn "I know it when I see it?" Basically if they were to use Leia again in Rebels no one would have an issue, no one would say its unethical. But if they try to put her in Episode IX using CGI, people will not like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's weird. But yeah, I think it's when you shoot for a 100% likeness that people get upset. I guess because it's kind of creepy, and kind of cynical. And particularly when an actor is recently dead, and particularly one that has a massive personality. That can never be recreated. No matter how good the CGI, an actors personality and insight can't be recreated. Maybe that's part of the problem. I dunno. But when it's a cartoon it's more about the character so people don't mind. They're making a familiar obi wan. When it's photo realistic CGI it's cause they're trying to replicate the actor, which is problematic cause as I said above. You can't replicate the actors mind and personality.

 

But I don't know. I think for a lot of people it just feels weird. Like it can't be explained super logically cause there is a lot of grey area, but it just feels kinda wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is something I was thinking while watching the Obi Wan episode of Rebels:

 

At what point do people have a problem with this? What I mean is that in this episode they use CGI to create an Obi Wan Kenobi who is obviously supposed to look like Alec Guinness and they use a voice actor who is supposed to sound like him. Yet no one would ever have an issue with this or call it unethical.

Cartoons are for children. The people you refer to not having an issue with the ethics surrounding resurrecting dead film actors haven't gone through puberty yet.

 

The only adults that watch these things are star wars super fans. Why else would an adult be watching cartoons, if not for their own children? Besides, the adult star wars fan should also know by now that cartoons aren't held to the same standards as movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They already CGI Leia in Rogue One. I don't see why it's such a.big issue.

 

But you're right. I tried arguing against it, but essentially you're right. People wouldn't have an issue with a cartoon leia in Rebels. Why because double standards are just the way of life that's why.

 

However if you noticed no one had a problem with a CGI Tarkin in Rogue one. The reason is because it wasn't too soon people don't want a CGI Leia in the new Trilogy because it is unfortunately for the stupid Society we live in too soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just because of the medium. In a cartoon like Rebels, everyone is CGI and with few exceptions, all the voices are portrayed by different actors. The main casts from the PT and OT did not come back to voice their characters for Clone Wars or Rebels. When Leia appeared in Rebels two seasons back, Carrie Fisher didn't voice her then. So why would people have a problem with it now?

 

In a film with flesh and blood actors having to act around a CGI character of someone who just recently passed, the look will be more uncomfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main casts from the PT and OT did not come back to voice their characters for Clone Wars or Rebels.

 

Billy Dee Williams voiced Lando, Frank Oz voiced Yoda, Genevieve O'Reilly voiced Mon Mothma, Anthony Daniels voiced C-3PO, and JEJ voiced Vader, all on Rebels. Yup, definitely no original actors from the OT and PT in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im probably missing something, but do we know if anyone actually came out and said "oh yeah, I got a problem with this", or are we just talking hypothetical?

Well for the most part it was Disney saying they had no intentions on CGI Leia. I'm guessing it's personal to them. Tarkin who could give a s*** he died a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.