Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

So it seems like Disney are going to go ahead with a CG Leia.

 

In this particular case (for varied personal reasons) I'm not for, nor against it, but I am seeing a lot of comments online suggesting it's wrong to do so. Just wondering what people's thoughts are on here.

 

With all due respect to Carrie Fisher, RIP x She was an integral part of what made those films, which played a huge part in my life only some of us will ever understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Clearly, it's a clone of Carrie Fisher. They can do it. After all, Temeura Morrison was cloned to play all those clonetroopers in Episodes II and III. Wasn't he?

I think it depends on context.   Using Carrie Fischer's likeness to tell Star Wars stories-- fine. Her likeness has been owned by Lucasfilm most of her adult life. If her family is all for it, even b

I think the opposite.   I think Kylo is going to go full-on evil, kill Snoke after he learns all he can, and be the new "Emperor" of sorts. Killing Han was supposed to show he crossed the line, and

I think it depends on context.

 

Using Carrie Fischer's likeness to tell Star Wars stories-- fine. Her likeness has been owned by Lucasfilm most of her adult life. If her family is all for it, even better.

 

Using her likeness to sell fast food or breakfast cereal? That's when it gets tacky and gross.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

With Leia, we already saw a CGI version in Rogue One before Carrie Fisher passed away, so I think from a moral standpoint, I am in agreement with MJS. As long as the surviving members of Carrie Fisher's estate are okay with using a CGI Leia, I am too. Especially considering the circumstances. Fisher's death was very unexpected.

 

Tarkin,OTOH, while I was OK with the CGI personally, I can see there would be grounds to object. CGI tech hadn't progressed to the point it has today, when Cushing died, so it's hard to know if Cushing would have been OK with using his likeness like that, unless it was a sure thing that his family or estate would be compensated. I think that is an interesting question, really. If we see more CGI resurrections, who benefits from it? If it is just Hollywood cashing in on deceased actors without asking families of said actors for permission and/or without properly compensating the surviving family members for the use of said actors' likenesses, then I think I have to say I am against it.

 

Of course in today's litigious society, studios will simply force actors and actresses to sign away their likeness to be used by the studio whenever and however they want, even after their deaths. So really, the Genie may already be out of the bottle, and therefore making CGI resurrection a moot point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is really so much about this that depends on the circumstances. As noted above, Cushing wasn't asked what he thought about being brought back to life as a CGI character. However, given everything I know about Cushing, I think he would have been all for it. As far as ethical considerations go, it's really not too much of a problem. Plus, I've noted before that Cushing himself is a special case because his bone structure is so unique that there's something alien about his presence in the first place, so the uncanny valley can be fudged just a bit more.

 

But, Alec Guiness would be another story. We all know that he was pretty crabby about Star Wars. Whether his family would give permission or not, it just shouldn't be done.

 

In the specific case of Carrie/Leia, turning a major character into a CGI character midway through the series wouldn't be satisfactory no matter what. If this movie were kicked down the road 10 years from now, perhaps, but it's not. It'd just be too jarring a transition. So I'm pretty sure that they'll use a CGI stand-in for a few scenes just to give the character a proper send off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the deceased's heirs get compensated appropriately, and as long as the performance is more-or-less in line with what the living actors performances were, I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.

 

For instance, if CG Tarkin had to do a gratuitous frontal nudity scene on the death star, I'd consider that wrong no matter how much his family got paid because obviously Mr. Cushing would never have signed off on something like that. However, if an entire movie revolved around him as a CG main character, and if the "performance" is something the late actor would have been reasonably proud of, it's fine. Just pay the right people the right amount of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Of course in today's litigious society, studios will simply force actors and actresses to sign away their likeness to be used by the studio whenever and however they want, even after their deaths. So really, the Genie may already be out of the bottle, and therefore making CGI resurrection a moot point.

 

Yes, that would be the nature of the beast. Maybe people would be sensitive about it because it's Disney, but they don't exactly put their logo ahead of the film now do they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Won't be seeing Episodes VIII or IX, but in general, I don't have a problem with it. In fact, as someone who is always fascinated with property rights, who exactly owns the faces of the deceased? Obviously not the deceased themselves anymore. Possibly their families? If it is okay with the families, it is okay with me.

Then there is the matter of whether or not the families need to be compensated. This is all a very hazy area to deal with, especially for a voluntaryist like myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In general if the estate gives permission and is getting paid, then whatever. And if the character they're resurrecting is one the actor had already played while they were alive, fine. Personally, I don't think anyone has any business trying to decide what the actor or actress would or would not have wanted to act in after their decease (god, that's a weird sentence)... but again, really, I guess it's just if the estate gives the OK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Source? Last I heard they were just starting to discuss the plans for Leia's future.

 

Mara, there are articles online which mention Lucasfilm are talking with her estate, if they hadn't already decided to take this route I doubt they wouldn't even be talking with them.

 

No matter how good a CG Leia will look it's going to be both creepy and depressing watching it, knowing she's passed on, even if it's 100 x better than what they did with Rogue One.

 

It absolutely sucks that she died.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

I mean, what else could it possibly be? An animatronic Leia?

I think she was meaning body doubles and angle shots where you don't see the face, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, true. Also, I'm pretty sure that's what they did with Temeura Morrison, only using shots where they did show his face. I don't think they produced him completely from CGI because the technology in the early 2000s would not have allowed for such an authentic-looking human face to be produced (see The Mummy Returns).

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...