Resurrecting dead actors via CGI?

[jmc]

Studios usually own the characters in their films and those character's images so for instance [blackout]Tarkin[/blackout] and his appearance as played by [blackout]Cushing[/blackout] belongs to LFL and Disney so they can use it how they want to. They can use it for merchandising and marketing. So why not use it in films as well? If Disney and LFL want [blackout]Tarkin[/blackout] in a film they can put him in a film and give him [blackout]Cushing's[/blackout] face and voice. It doesnt bother me and I enjoy this sort of thing when its done well and serves the story.

I'm pretty certain that isn't quite how it is. They own the characters and the likeness of the character, but that doesn't give them permission to just do as they please with the face of the actor, they don't own the actors face. It's one thing to use an image shot for the purposes of publicity, it's another thing to recreate somebody using CGI without them approving it. If Robert Downey Jr were to part ways with Marvel that doesn't give them licence to do as they please with his face just because he played Tony Stark.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Disney and LFL had to obtain permission from that actor's estate before they could use his digital likeness in the film.

 

[Dr.]

I'm pretty certain that isn't quite how it is. They own the characters and the likeness of the character, but that doesn't give them permission to just do as they please with the face of the actor, they don't own the actors face. It's one thing to use an image shot for the purposes of publicity, it's another thing to recreate somebody using CGI without them approving it. If Robert Downey Jr were to part ways with Marvel that doesn't give them licence to do as they please with his face just because he played Tony Stark.

I believe you are correct. Producers own the existing film(s) and the character; so they’re free to reuse old footage (or even deleted scenes) in, say, a sequel. They’re also free to recast the actor. But the actor owns his/her own likeness. So new content using that likeness (whether it’s CGI, cell animation or an amazingly accurate latex mask) requires permission and, typically, additional remuneration.

Now, some actors sign a multi-movie contract (in anticipation of a franchise). So if the actor dropped dead after movie #1, the producers might have the legal right to use a CGI replacement. The estate, though, would still get $$$ (just as the actor would if s/her were still alive).

 

[Elayis]

Personally I find the practice disturbing and immoral. Anything to keep milking the cash-cow, right? There's just something inherently creepy about hiring an impersonator and then replacing their face with someone that's dead. There's something ethereal about an actor's performance that you can't imitate, something sacred. And when the person being imitated doesn't have veto, can't even speak out (or maybe in favor of) the process, it just feels wrong. And in the end all it will ever be is an imitation, you can't completely copy the original actor's essence. There will always be something missing, it will always be a lesser

Right now, I don't even think this topic should be broached when the technology hasn't been perfected. While Tarkin may be the best realization yet, the process still has a long way to go before it's believable. Sure, casual moviegoers today may be fooled by it, but the movie won't age well. Rotc & RotS look terrible now, especially Yoda and the clone troopers, whereas the practical effects of yesteryear still look pretty good.

De-aging an actor's existing performance (like in Tron or recent Marvel movies) on the other hand is something I have no problem with. Same with reusing archival footage, though I prefer it when it's for a role the actor's already played (like Brando in Superman). In those cases the actors gave consent and actually filmed those roles, and reusing that footage is only a matter of getting the copyright holder's permission.

All of this is a moot point, though. It looks like Hollywood has every intention of continuing this practice and improving it. Using this process for a lead role may never become common practice, though. How many actors want to make a career out of imitating someone else? Even Guy Henry said that if it had been anyone other than Peter Cushing (who he had based a previous performance of his after) he wouldn't have done it, and Tarkin's just a small part. But the biggest issue is cost. I can't imagine how expensive this is to do. Having to do it for a starring role would most likely not be feasible.

To me, in a case like Tarkin they should've just recast the part, if they were so insistent on using the character (personally I didn't think he had much of an impact on the story). A real actor giving a real performance will always be superior to a computerized copy. The de-aging in Ant-Man worked because it was just for that one scene, I don't think you could do that for an entire film and still be convincing, especially in action or emotional scenes.

 

[harlequinade]

It's OK in small doses when it's just a cameo or something to keep the continuity which cannot be done in a different way (both refer to Rogue One) but I agree it would be creepy in larger doses. There was once this commercial of Audrey Hepburn long after she died, she was just CGI and it was so disturbing to watch - it's not her, it's just a digital replica that looks like her. **** is creepy.

 

[Dr.]

There was once this commercial of Audrey Hepburn long after she died, she was just CGI and it was so disturbing to watch - it's not her, it's just a digital replica that looks like her. **** is creepy.

I thought that commercial was technically impressive. And it was fairly tasteful - utilizing a low-key, soft-sell approach to the product (chocolate). Different story if CGI Hepburn were, say, aggressively hawking used cars or washing machines.

 

[harlequinade]

I thought that commercial was technically impressive. And it was fairly tasteful - utilizing a low-key, soft-sell approach to the product (chocolate). Different story if CGI Hepburn were, say, aggressively hawking used cars or washing machines.

I'd think if it was a cartoon or something where it would be obvious it's supposed to be Audrey-like character it would be fine but creating something so lifelike that I legit had to check if this was archive footage of some kind that was used was startling

 

[Roose Bolton]

I can understand it in the case of Tarkin, because it takes place within the same week as the original film and wanted to maintain a certain continuity. That's not to say I'd want to see it all the time, but as Disney gained permission and perhaps paid the Cushing estate I don't really have an issue with it in that sense.

 

[Neno_Kos]

I always think about film in general like it's one big memory of actor for eternity. Film can capture that magic. Even when some actors are gone and they are not anymore with us, we have opportunitiy to enjoy them again on screen in ther full glory and remember them.

I personally think this would be distasteful. I think Hollywood is at bottom of their existance. It started with remakes, and for me realizing Hollywood doesnt even have anymore fresh ideas for new properties. I will likely never experience something like Star Wars when it come out for first time on big screen cause Hollywood is done as idea of something original and new and amazing. And now we are getting closer to something even worse, ressurecting dead. Remakes, rehashes and ressurecting dead people on big screen.


I think we can in that moment say Hollywood is dead.

 

[Dark Raven]

Recently Hawaii-5-O 'resurrected' Jack Lord.

I thought that was badly done and didn't really quite look like him or even look real.

I thought the Audrey Hepburn commercial looked far better and convincing.

I also posted a thread/ poll in the Marvel section on most impressive body transformation VFX for people to check out:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=522215

 

[Greens]

I always think about film in general like it's one big memory of actor for eternity. Film can capture that magic. Even when some actors are gone and they are not anymore with us, we have opportunitiy to enjoy them again on screen in ther full glory and remember them.

I personally think this would be distasteful. I think Hollywood is at bottom of their existance. It started with remakes, and for me realizing Hollywood doesnt even have anymore fresh ideas for new properties. I will likely never experience something like Star Wars when it come out for first time on big screen cause Hollywood is done as idea of something original and new and amazing. And now we are getting closer to something even worse, ressurecting dead. Remakes, rehashes and ressurecting dead people on big screen.


I think we can in that moment say Hollywood is dead.

You will never experience something like Star Wars because the world, and cinema by proxy, was different then. It has nothing to do with the state of Hollywood.

Hollywood has been remaking and rehashing **** since its inception. If it's dead now it was never alive.

 

[Gold Samurai]

Recently Hawaii-5-O 'resurrected' Jack Lord.

On a TV budget that was horrible. It looks like a PS3 game render specifically a bad game

 

[Dark Raven]

Yeah, it looked terrible. It doesn't even quite look like Jack Lord anyway, but apart from that it looks horribly unrealistic. It was a bit like that shot of Ed Norton's Hulk landing in the university campus grounds when he was about to fight the army which also looked completely fake.

And the voice actor who did Jack Lord didn't sound very accurate either.

 

[jmc]

I can understand it in the case of Tarkin, because it takes place within the same week as the original film and wanted to maintain a certain continuity. That's not to say I'd want to see it all the time, but as Disney gained permission and perhaps paid the Cushing estate I don't really have an issue with it in that sense.

The thing is though they recast Mon Mothma, so I don't see why a new actor couldn't have played Tarkin. It would have saved a crap load of money too.

 

[Roose Bolton]

The thing is though they recast Mon Mothma, so I don't see why a new actor couldn't have played Tarkin. It would have saved a crap load of money too.

Because Mon Mothma never appeared in the original film and Tarkin did. Rogue One takes place on the same week, possibly within 48 hours of A New Hope, and the way they made the film was that you could literally remove the credits of the two films and edit them as one big feature. It may have been their intention to create a tight visual continuity with that first movie.

Plus, I think it's a bit of a different case with Mon Mothma because her role within the franchise is considerably smaller.

 

[Thundarr]

Hollywood's been doing stuff like this for years. Take this cereal commercial from 1989 for example.


I don't think that there's anything really immoral about it. If the estate of the deceased actor agrees to it and is compensated financially, then all is well as far as I'm concerned. I don't think that the technology is ready to attempt to digitally recreate the actors as the leading roles, so we don't have to worry about seeing a new Bruce Lee or Marilyn Monroe movie any time soon, if at all.

 

[jmc]

Because Mon Mothma never appeared in the original film and Tarkin did. Rogue One takes place on the same week, possibly within 48 hours of A New Hope, and the way they made the film was that you could literally remove the credits of the two films and edit them as one big feature. It may have been their intention to create a tight visual continuity with that first movie.

Plus, I think it's a bit of a different case with Mon Mothma because her role within the franchise is considerably smaller.

I'm fully aware when the film takes place, the point is people would have been completely understanding that casting would have been necessary in this case. Let's be honest, Rogue One is a film that is essentially fan service, it was done for fans not because it needed to be there.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

I guess the argument here should be, do we even have a right to say whether or not it's distasteful, or immoral? I'm not going to claim that I knew [BLACKOUT]Cushing[/BLACKOUT], or any other actor who will be digitally recreated in the years to come, and if their estate, family, friends, people who knew them best, etc., give these studios permission, should we really pretend like we have the higher moral authority over them?

 

[redhawk23]

I thought that commercial was technically impressive. And it was fairly tasteful - utilizing a low-key, soft-sell approach to the product (chocolate). Different story if CGI Hepburn were, say, aggressively hawking used cars or washing machines.

Does it really make much of a difference what product it is?

 

[redhawk23]

I guess the argument here should be, do we even have a right to say whether or not it's distasteful, or immoral? I'm not going to claim that I knew [BLACKOUT]Cushing[/BLACKOUT], or any other actor who will be digitally recreated in the years to come, and if their estate, family, friends, people who knew them best, etc., give these studios permission, should we really pretend like we have the higher moral authority over them?

Do their families have a moral standing to loan out their faces and personas either?

This extends even to just more normal marketing. I was fairly appalled to see a Bob Marley themed restaurant at Universal Studios Orlando this past summer. Given the singers life of musical activism, anti-imperialism and spirituality it was such a shame to see his name slapped on a cheesey restaurant where coverbands played his music to unattentive tourists.

You know the complanies that handle this licensing rights make bank off the deal though.

 

[Dr.]

Does it really make much of a difference what product it is?

It can. For instance, actor promoting blue jeans is more benign than actor promoting nuclear power, methinks. (Any any case, notice that I only mentioned the product parenthetically... because it was parenthetical to my point). The real determinant of “tasteful” vs. “crass” comes down, IMO, to whether the pitch is a hard or soft sell. A hard sell might be an actor (CGI or real) directly addressing the camera and passionately explaining the virtues Product X. But in this case, the commercial was essentially a mini romantic narrative about a bus breaking down and hitching a ride - crafted to resemble a scene from a hypothetical 1950s-era Audrey Hepburn movie. And the chocolate was represented via passive “product placement.” CGI Audrey did no overt selling. Hence, in my view, “tasteful.”

 

[Sawyer]

I think it's all about context.

Am I interested in seeing a movie with CG Audrey Hepburn as its lead? Nah.
If they have troubles finding a new James Bond, do I want to see them just make Sean Connery young again and go from there? No thanks.

But something akin to [blackout]Tarkin[/blackout] in Rogue One? I'm good with it for a few reasons. 1: Without the benefit of freeze-frame and picking over all the flaws, I really thought it looked fine (tbh, I was a little more iffy about [blackout]Leia[/blackout] than I was about [blackout]Tarkin[/blackout], 2: it was a supporting role with somewhere between 5-10 minutes of screentime, 3: Within the chronology of Star Wars, Rogue One could've ended days before A New Hope picked up. Now, you could've just cast a similar looking actor and tried to bridge the gap with make-up, but they went in a different direction and I don't begrudge them for it. I thought it worked out fine.

 

[Vaibow]

If they are using an already established character, i see no harm - aka Cushing, Brando etc. If they create a whole new character using their image, then, as long as the estate agrees and it is done respectfully, then fair enough, but as long as it's not OTT. Sky captain for instance, was ok.
I honestly don't see it going beyond glorified cameo's and that's ok with me.

 

[Dark Raven]

I would like a CGI Bruce Lee to finish off the movie "The Game of Death". There's existing footage of him fighting his way to the top of a pagoda, but a lot of the film is still missing.

In the 70s, a version was completed which has a completely different plot and involves lots of doubles and "Bruce Lee" in disguise, with only about 5-10 minutes of actual footage of the real actor.

I want to see the original pagoda plot.

 

[AlluAllu]

So Carrie Fisher died. RIP.

That means that she wont be able to do Episode IX. I can see Disney editing her scenes and adding CGI to send her off to a sunset in VIII.