Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

  • 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

"We want to assure our fans that Lucasfilm has no plans to digitally recreate Carrie Fishers performance as Princess or General Leia Organa."

 

....... again

This.could be an insight into her role in VIII. Maybe she goes into.hiding? Maybe she leaves or gets killed and won't be needed in IX. I refuse to believe they'll recast because that IS THE BIGGEST MISTAKE THEY CAN EVER MAKE. This isnt Jennifer from Back to the future were.talking about here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think recasting would be a mistake.

 

If this had happened 4 or 5 years ago, I'd agree. Recasting the role between mid-20s Leia and mid-50s Leia wouldn't have been a controversial choice, or at least not controversial enough to override the relative simplicity of resolving the issue.

 

But replacing her two movies in? Now you're treading into dangerous territory. The safest thing they can do is to use discarded footage and a body double to write her out either at the beginning of Episode IX or, if Leia was in significant danger near the end of VIII, change the ending so that whoever actually pulls the trigger.

 

I'm pretty sure that there are many options on the table for how to handle that. Presumably, removing Leia from the movies is upsetting many plans, but if I were to wager, they'll quickly consolidate around giving Leia the sendoff she deserves and worry about the logistics of how to do it later.

 

As far as the movie goes, replacing Leia in the plot is probably their bigger concern. Depending on how big a role Leia was going to have, this could cause some fairly significant re-writes. Leia may well have been expected to complete the passing of the torch to Rey and her companions. The confrontation and/or reunion between mother and son probably will never happen. For all we know, that scene could have been planned as key to the conclusion of Kylo Ren's arc.

 

It's weird to think we could well have all the Big 3 from the original cast killed off 11 months from now, only two movies in. Being a wise old teacher is just about the deadliest job ever invented according to fiction (and especially in Star Wars), so there's a fairly good chance Luke doesn't make it out of Episode VIII alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this can be used from a story perspective? My prediction for Kylo Ren is that he is seduced by the Light Side. That he has a chance to repeat his performance with Han, but fails to kill Rey or Leia at the end and then goes into hiding until he reemerges in Episode IX somewhere between Ben Solo and Kylo Ren and denying both identities. His final redemption makes up a large part of the climax.

 

Well, what if things are jiggered a bit so that after he makes his decision, something happens through Snoke or General Hux to kill off Leia and make Kylo Ren believe that he'd caused it? Give him a bit more in the "Oh my God!" thought, but also fuel the idea that he's gone this far to the Dark Side, maybe it's too late to go back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Seduced by the Light Side"? Ugh. Please no. I thought Kylo was the villain not an emo goth geek.

 

CGI actor resurrection is perfectly ethical, as long as they weren't killed just to justify resurrecting them. Fretting about it is silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Perhaps this can be used from a story perspective? My prediction for Kylo Ren is that he is seduced by the Light Side. That he has a chance to repeat his performance with Han, but fails to kill Rey or Leia at the end and then goes into hiding until he reemerges in Episode IX somewhere between Ben Solo and Kylo Ren and denying both identities. His final redemption makes up a large part of the climax.

 

Well, what if things are jiggered a bit so that after he makes his decision, something happens through Snoke or General Hux to kill off Leia and make Kylo Ren believe that he'd caused it? Give him a bit more in the "Oh my God!" thought, but also fuel the idea that he's gone this far to the Dark Side, maybe it's too late to go back.

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 is irredeemable, and his story is the exact inverse of Luke's story, and different from even Vader, because even he was redeemed in the end. We've seen the Hero's journey with Luke (and maybe with Rey, if she is a Skywalker), a tragic hero gone villain who gets redeemed in the end with Anakin, but we've yet to see the Villain's Journey in a Skywalker/Solo in the movies, which is what I think Kylo's story is going to be. I wouldn't put it past Kylo to kill Leia and/or Luke. I think if Kylo is redeemed, that would be anti-climatic, and as sad as what happened to Carrie Fisher, from a story stand point, it would actually solve the question of what to do with Leia, as well as establish Kylo as completely evil and dark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have time to fix IX and write around it. We may always wonder what could have been, and some day the original version of the script could leak-- but movies go through so many drafts before they reach the public.

 

Even though I think it hindered them greatly, the PT movies were being written on the fly during shooting for many scenes. TFA did a major rewrite in the middle of production.

 

The fact that VIII is still in post and IX is in preproduction means that they can find a way to write around Carrie's death.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the question of ethics, I look at it this way. The Beatles were willing to put out new songs by mixing new material with Lennon's old unreleased tracks with the blessing of Yoko Ono, and (mostly) everyone was just fine with that. Having CGI Carrie mixed in with unused footage would be similar as long as the family also gives their blessing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even though I think it hindered them greatly, the PT movies were being written on the fly during shooting for many scenes. TFA did a major rewrite in the middle of production.

 

The fact that VIII is still in post and IX is in preproduction means that they can find a way to write around Carrie's death.

 

Yeah, I've been reading a Lucas biography recently and according to that, Lucas hadn't made a definitive choice whether to keep or kill off Obi Wan until well into the shoot of ANH. They've got plenty of time to write around it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't get over this announcement from Lucasfilm. Why was everyone cool.with a hologram of Tupac but not CGI Leia? Too soon or.double standard?

I actually had that very same discussion with someone recently, though it was before Carrie had passed and was related more to Cushing. The Tupac hologram there was no question he was no longer with us. It was there to serve as a tribute to the artist. A CGI likeness isn't a tribute, it's there to serve the franchise. For me, recreating Carrie's likeness in CG isn't done to pay respects to her, it's a workaround to help further Star Wars in narrative and financially. The hologram is just to act as a reminder of the talent we lost.

 

That said, there were a lot of people who weren't cool with the hologram either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate that sort of comparison. I see it in political posts all the time. Just because they are similar conceptually they may not be equally comparable. To say something general like "cool with Tupac but not Leia" implies they are being presented by the same people, to the same audience, by the same perpetuators.

 

Lucasfilm didn't bring Tupac back to life for Coachella.

 

The Coachella governing board and Death Row didn't pay a jillion dollars to recreate a Star Wars character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at everyone's opinions here, it seems that everyone feels okay with CG resurrection so long as certain requirements are met (for example intent). Since opinions differ on the requirements (outside forces) and not the actual act itself, I think it's safe to say the collective opinion here is that the act itself is not immoral. I think that's an important distinction to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And to say that a CGI Fisher is there for financial gain but Tupac was there as a tribute is also off. It's not like they set up a free Tupac hologram concert at a public park for all to see.

Not really. Sure they made coin off it, but its nowhere near the same as featuring a CG replacement in a multi billion dollar franchise to help sell some more tickets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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