Yep. They’re doing it. Apparently with his estate’s blessing.
Now. Digital de-ageing for flash-backs, or multi-era films? Fine. Doesn’t bother me. Indeed, it opens up new story telling possibilities.
Peter Cushing’s appearance in Rogue One (and indeed Carrie Fisher in Episode IX). OK, I get that. They were both iconic in their roles, so whilst a wee bit grave robbing for some, at least there’s justification.
This? This is outright ghoulish. They’re not completing a previous film, they’ve basically just bought the rights to his likeness.
Why? What is the angle here? It’s clearly not him. James Dean is categorically not making a new movie. Some poor sap is gonna play his part physically, and get second billing to a sodding picture.
It’s not often I get upset by stuff. But this has really made me feel queasy. Enough Hollywood. Put it down. Stop it. This minute, you sick, money grabbing ghouls.
Azreal13 wrote: Cushing and Fisher are ok, but this is wrong?
Arbitrary line in the sand is arbitrary.
Difference, Cushing and Fisher were reprising iconic roles.
Especially Carrie Fisher, as that was untimely.
Cushing? It was his likeness being used, and used well. Though I concede it was a bit weird for the de-aged Carrie Fisher.
But this is something in a different league. This isn’t getting an existing character to look the part. This is a whole new film where they’re just grave robbing someone’s likeness for no readily apparent reason.
Unlike General Organa and Grand Moff Tarkin, there is no reason at all to use James Dean’s likeness in this movie. Absolutely none at all. Other than ghoulish greed.
Azreal13 wrote: Cushing and Fisher are ok, but this is wrong?
Arbitrary line in the sand is arbitrary.
Difference, Cushing and Fisher were reprising iconic roles.
Especially Carrie Fisher, as that was untimely.
Cushing? It was his likeness being used, and used well. Though I concede it was a bit weird for the de-aged Carrie Fisher.
But this is something in a different league. This isn’t getting an existing character to look the part. This is a whole new film where they’re just grave robbing someone’s likeness for no readily apparent reason.
Unlike General Organa and Grand Moff Tarkin, there is no reason at all to use James Dean’s likeness in this movie. Absolutely none at all. Other than ghoulish greed.
Did you not read my first post? This is just your personal threshold for having a problem, but it objectively makes no difference how these people are being used, the matter is simply is it right to do it or not?
Trying to draw degrees of objection based on arbitrary lines of distinction you've drawn up in your head is never going to make a robust argument. They could have written around Tarkin's involvement in R1, but made the decision not to and included him anyway. There was absolutely no requirement for a wholly original film to take that direction. That makes it negligibly different to writing a movie and "casting" an actor from beyond the grave.
The only thing that really matters is that the people who could legitimately be hurt by this, his family, are apparently on board. As long as that's legitimate and not arrived at through coercion then the only real argument is why not use an existing, still breathing, actor?
Fisher is largely featuring in ROS via existing footage to my understanding, so that's not the same thing, neither is digital ageing/de-aging.
I don't think it is ghoulish personally. I just think it's unnecessary and uncreative.
For Tarkin they could have just used stock footage, maybe some clever tricks of filmmaking (I just found out about the T2 garage scene where they didn't in fact have a mirror and it was body doubles on one end, blew my mind) or >gasp< hire an actor who could have passed for Tarkin at a glance or had the same silhouette. Same with Leia's scenes.
I feel the same way about this new tendency to "resurrect" dead actors as I do with fat suits to be honest. Gary Oldman is a great actor, but using him in a fat suit to portray Churchill? Why not just hire an actor who has a few extra pounds? Same with de-aging actors instead of just using an actor who might look like a younger version of the actor.
With that said, I have no real strong opinions about this. Just seems like a fad that will pass.
How many Elvis Impersonators are there? Heck pause and think that Elivs Impersonator is actually a JOB.
Acting has for generations always been about some nobody playing a somebody in someone else's story. With the very rare occasions where someone gets to play their themselves.
When you consider that we now use live actors with a digital overlay for fantasy creatures and machines and monsters; its not a huge stretch to consider using that same technology for overlaying a persons features. Be that a character with a unique appearance (say the Alita from the Alita film with the big eyes) all the way through to this.
The real oddity as such is that the actor is what's being recreated rather than the character.
It's basically a tech demo/publicity stunt/proof of concept. Someone wants to test to see if the tech is ready but isn't going to invest in it without a way to make back their funds. They get a name that will create the exact reaction we're seeing here to draw attention to the tech so they can start utilizing it other ways going forward.
Back when they used computers to "fill-in" for Brandon Lee on The Crow, I predicted there would be a time in my lifetime where we no longer needed actors. Only computer programs and pre-recorded and mixable audio files.
The Automation Replacement is now coming to the Arts too. Not just for Truckers, Service workers, and factory workers anymore. It is now coming to the "Creative Class". White Collar is not far behind.
Easy E wrote: Back when they used computers to "fill-in" for Brandon Lee on The Crow, I predicted there would be a time in my lifetime where we no longer needed actors. Only computer programs and pre-recorded and mixable audio files.
The Automation Replacement is now coming to the Arts too. Not just for Truckers, Service workers, and factory workers anymore. It is now coming to the "Creative Class". White Collar is not far behind.
White collar workers are actually easier to replace than blue collar. Blue collar takes software and expensive bespoke hardware that needs maintenance, white collar just takes software and cheap mass produced computers. Middle management, even most of upper management, will be gone long before the last factory worker disappears.
OK, so I am going to have another actor behind the CGI JD face and expect to try and enjoy another Oscar-worthy performance by the inimitable James Dean? oh for Gads sake, this is silly. I hope it bombs beyond comprehension and any future attempts to do this with anyone arbitrary (yes, to have JD star in a new pic is totally arbitrary) is quickly forgotten.
HOWEVER, to reprise really short roles on iconic series movies I can get behind, as it lends continuity and story familiarity. Cushing and Fisher; OK. Dumbledore in HP series; No - too much screen time and movies left, so another actor was totally the way to go.
What was untimely? Rogue One was made before Fisher died. They didn't CGI her because she was dead, they CGI'd her because she didn't look like an 18 year old anymore.
And, honestly, I wish they hadn't. The CGI for Leia was better than Tarkin's, but was still jarring and the movie would have been better off without it. Having those characters just glimpsed in the background, or only seen via hologram to disguise the fact that they don't look quite right would have been much better options.
But, really, I don't see the James Dean thing as any different. If it's been okayed by his estate, then there seems little moral ground to object on, and so far as the actual actor under the mocap being somewhat second-fiddle... well, I don't know the name of the guy under Jar Jar's head, either.
I expect that it's likely to look somewhat creepy, because full CGI human faces still just aren't quite 'there' yet... But it's difficult to object to it on a moral angle, if we haven't spent the last 100 years objecting to movies about other dead people's life stories...
Easy E wrote: Back when they used computers to "fill-in" for Brandon Lee on The Crow, I predicted there would be a time in my lifetime where we no longer needed actors. Only computer programs and pre-recorded and mixable audio files.
The Automation Replacement is now coming to the Arts too. Not just for Truckers, Service workers, and factory workers anymore. It is now coming to the "Creative Class". White Collar is not far behind.
White collar workers are actually easier to replace than blue collar. Blue collar takes software and expensive bespoke hardware that needs maintenance, white collar just takes software and cheap mass produced computers. Middle management, even most of upper management, will be gone long before the last factory worker disappears.
Yes, except middle managers are often the ones making the decisions on who and what to automate and therefore get to insulate themselves a bit.
insaniak wrote: But it's difficult to object to it on a moral angle, if we haven't spent the last 100 years objecting to movies about other dead people's life stories...
I don't know about that, I think it's pretty "Easy" to make a moral case against this. I think there is a fairly big gulf between using a "story" and actually using someone's "exact" likeness (although, in a way, they are akin).
In the case of Carrie Fisher, we can at least delude ourselves into figuring a sort of "implied consent" to being in a Star Wars movie, since, you know, she had been in them before. Not actual consent, but at least a notion of it.
In this case though, there is no consent at all, actual or implied. There was consent given on the part of his estate, but that is not his consent, which, of course, in unavailable because he is dead. In this case though, it likely is meaningless, because the movie likely isn't something reprehensible in-itself and might even be construed as something he'd do if alive.
But let's consider a different angle. Let's say I die and then, using something like deep-fakes or the like, someone pitches my family $20 and puts my face on someone doing absolutely reprehensible, immoral things. Now, is that moral? I would make a case that it is not, at least, somewhat convincingly so on the part of my family (in that they would sell my likeness to something immoral) and partly so on the person making the deep-fake, since they are pretty blatantly "buying" consent and leveraging the fact that I am dead to imply "no harm."
Now, can you make a convincing counter-case? I'm sure one can, but I don't see it clear-cut "absolutely" moral. There is a case to be made either way.
insaniak wrote: But it's difficult to object to it on a moral angle, if we haven't spent the last 100 years objecting to movies about other dead people's life stories...
I don't know about that, I think it's pretty "Easy" to make a moral case against this. I think there is a fairly big gulf between using a "story" and actually using someone's "exact" likeness (although, in a way, they are akin).
In the case of Carrie Fisher, we can at least delude ourselves into figuring a sort of "implied consent" to being in a Star Wars movie, since, you know, she had been in them before. Not actual consent, but at least a notion of it.
In this case though, there is no consent at all, actual or implied. There was consent given on the part of his estate, but that is not his consent, which, of course, in unavailable because he is dead. In this case though, it likely is meaningless, because the movie likely isn't something reprehensible in-itself and might even be construed as something he'd do if alive.
But let's consider a different angle. Let's say I die and then, using something like deep-fakes or the like, someone pitches my family $20 and puts my face on someone doing absolutely reprehensible, immoral things. Now, is that moral? I would make a case that it is not, at least, somewhat convincingly so on the part of my family (in that they would sell my likeness to something immoral) and partly so on the person making the deep-fake, since they are pretty blatantly "buying" consent and leveraging the fact that I am dead to imply "no harm."
Now, can you make a convincing counter-case? I'm sure one can, but I don't see it clear-cut "absolutely" moral. There is a case to be made either way.
WOT HE SAID!
Seriously.
There’s a difference between using CGI resurrect a character’s likeness, and resurrecting an actor for a role.
For the hard of understanding. If this was using CGI to complete James Dean’s last film? I get that’s distasteful to many, but at least has some justifiable purpose.
Using CGI to insert some poor sod who died some quarter of a century before I was born, and damned near a Quarter century after their untimely passing? That’s outright distasteful. And speaks purely of bs profit motive.
Yet you still fail to grasp that this is still essentially what they did to Cushing, because Tarkin was not explicitly needed for Rogue One. You're leaning very hard on the assumption that because he was willing to do it once that somehow he'd be ok with doing it again. Without that assumption there's no argument that these are different.
Imagine Rogue One without Tarkin. And then, come a New Hope? Who is this guy?
Could they have told a different tale? Yes.
Could they have told the same story without Tarkin? No,
But keep clutching at your straws on this one. You may even wish to re-read my original post, where I acknowledge that may be unappealing to some, but not me, without passing any kind of judgement either way.....
Could they have told the same story without Tarkin? No.
There we go then, problem solved. No need to resurrect Cushing then, was there?
I acknowledge that may be unappealing to some, but not me
Which is my point. You've got weird cognitive dissonance going on about when it is acceptable to resurrect an actor and when it isn't, when the morality is that it either always is (with the blessing of any it might legitimately impact) or it never is.
not quite sure why the technomancy is faffing with the dead, surely tech is at the sim.1 point, just make virtual film stars, they don't age or misbehave
Azreal13 wrote: Which is my point. You've got weird cognitive dissonance going on about when it is acceptable to resurrect an actor and when it isn't, when the morality is that it either always is (with the blessing of any it might legitimately impact) or it never is.
That's an interesting "absolutist" position. But in reality, how are we to say everything has to be a binary, "always right" or "always wrong?"
For instance, is it ever moral to kill someone? In what case could we say yes and in what case no? Why is there a difference, if any and how can we know one case from another?
Except I'm not arguing everything is binary. Which, frankly, misrepresents my position so far as to be off topic.
I'm suggesting that, in this instance to try and argue that there is some sort of exception to the rights and wrongs of bringing an actor back from the dead based on how their likeness is used is a decidedly weak position to take.
Azreal13 wrote: Except I'm not arguing everything is binary. Which, frankly, misrepresents my position so far as to be off topic.
I'm suggesting that, in this instance to try and argue that there is some sort of exception to the rights and wrongs of bringing an actor back from the dead based on how their likeness is used is a decidedly weak position to take.
Your own words were "the morality is that it either always is (with the blessing of any it might legitimately impact) or it never is" but it's off topic to ask why you assume this case must be a binary? I should have chosen my words better, but I am specifically asking why, in this case, is it a fact of that matter that it must either always be right or always wrong?
Azreal13 wrote: Which is my point. You've got weird cognitive dissonance going on about when it is acceptable to resurrect an actor and when it isn't, when the morality is that it either always is (with the blessing of any it might legitimately impact) or it never is.
That's an interesting "absolutist" position. But in reality, how are we to say everything has to be a binary, "always right" or "always wrong?"
We don't need to be absolutist about it. But it is quite bizarre to take the contrary position: that the exact same thing is OK for one person and not OK for another, depending on who is getting digitized or what franchise they were in.
Dean is dead, Cushing is dead. Having either in a film is exactly equivalent, so 'Dean is wrong, but Cushing is OK' is pure cognitive dissonance.
No, the 'character' doesn't matter. No, Tarkin wasn't somehow necessary for Rogue One. White cloak guy was invented to be the manager of the death star project, and ghost Tarkin muddying up the plot with some upper level management shenanigans didn't make it better.
In and of itself, I really don't see a problem with this. The family is ok with this and there appears to be a desire to do it right, and it's not the first time this has been done.
Actors play and portray dead people all the time, and the likeliness of the dead has been used in cinema and art forever. I don't see how this is any different. Likewise, actors get hidden beneath masks and CGI routinely anyway for tons of characters, so feeling bad for the body actor shouldnt really be too much of an issue.
What I would find offensive would be a *bad* CGI portrayal. If the performance stands up, all should be well.
Azreal13 wrote: Except I'm not arguing everything is binary. Which, frankly, misrepresents my position so far as to be off topic.
I'm suggesting that, in this instance to try and argue that there is some sort of exception to the rights and wrongs of bringing an actor back from the dead based on how their likeness is used is a decidedly weak position to take.
Your own words were "the morality is that it either always is (with the blessing of any it might legitimately impact) or it never is" but it's off topic to ask why you assume this case must be a binary? I should have chosen my words better, but I am specifically asking why, in this case, is it a fact of that matter that it must either always be right or always wrong?
Voss basically channelled my answer for me. This isn't a question of right and wrong, in the grand sense, this is simply a question of acceptability. Is it ok to use dead people for the entertainment of the public?
If you're willing to suggest a non yes/no answer to that question that isn't just an arbitrary delineation, I'm willing to discuss it.
Voss wrote: We don't need to be absolutist about it. But it is quite bizarre to take the contrary position: that the exact same thing is OK for one person and not OK for another, depending on who is getting digitized or what franchise they were in.
Dean is dead, Cushing is dead. Having either in a film is exactly equivalent, so 'Dean is wrong, but Cushing is OK' is pure cognitive dissonance.
No, the 'character' doesn't matter. No, Tarkin wasn't somehow necessary for Rogue One. White cloak guy was invented to be the manager of the death star project, and ghost Tarkin muddying up the plot with some upper level management shenanigans didn't make it better.
I'm not sure how you start by saying there is no need to be absolutist, then present an appeal to absolute morality. Do we need to, or not? Is it bizarre to consider that circumstances could indicate to us a differing moral outlook depending on their nature and composition? You seem to advocate that the answer is no. That is an absolute position, it is never moral. That is moral absolutism.
There is a value in something like a strict Kantian deontological paradigm, in certain cases, in certain respects. But in this one? I don't see it. Also, it should be noted that I never mentioned Cushing/Tarkin, because I believe the case to be different than with Fisher. Two, I already raised what I see as the plausible, though debatable, notion of implied consent. In fact, we "run" on implied consent all the time with respect to somethings, so it's not a bizarre notion. If you are injured and arrive at a hospital unconscious, they take on implied consent that they can work on you, probably invasively, to save your life. You can't consent in that case and they can't know if you would want them to save you or not, yet, there is a standing notion of implied consent.
Again, I do not make the case that Fisher and Cushing are A-OK cases. Rather, I only presented plausible reasons why they could be seen as such with the Dean case being "different." Again, the position was advanced that there was "difficult to object on a moral angle" and there I disagree. So, I made what I felt was a plausible case. You can disagree. Fair enough, but nothing presented so far tells me my case was implausible, even if it might still be objectionable or not.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Imagine Rogue One without Tarkin. And then, come a New Hope? Who is this guy?
He's the regional governor. We get that information at the start of ANH, just as we did before Rogue One existed.
Could they have told the same story without Tarkin?
Yup. There was nothing in Tarkin's role that required him to be physically present. He could have been present by hologram (which would have allowed them to fuzz it enough to use a lookalike, or remove the uncanny valley effect of his CGI-ness), or his role could have been filled by another Moff acting with his authority. And then right at the end of the movie, someone mentions that Governor Tarkin is on his way to assume direct control of the station. Done.
Voss wrote: We don't need to be absolutist about it. But it is quite bizarre to take the contrary position: that the exact same thing is OK for one person and not OK for another, depending on who is getting digitized or what franchise they were in.
Dean is dead, Cushing is dead. Having either in a film is exactly equivalent, so 'Dean is wrong, but Cushing is OK' is pure cognitive dissonance.
No, the 'character' doesn't matter. No, Tarkin wasn't somehow necessary for Rogue One. White cloak guy was invented to be the manager of the death star project, and ghost Tarkin muddying up the plot with some upper level management shenanigans didn't make it better.
I'm not sure how you start by saying there is no need to be absolutist, then present an appeal to absolute morality. <snip>
Yeah, no navel gazing. _I_ didn't make any appeal to absolute morality. I merely commented on the cognitive dissonance in holding different opinions about the same situation simply because the actors were different, or that Star Wars makes it OK, when it would be offensive otherwise- which is the premise of the thread, or at least the title. 'Ghoulish' seems an obvious moral judgement, but then Cushing comes up and it suddenly isn't.
I think there is a difference here between something like Cushing/Tarkin and what's being proposed. For me the difference is that the former is recreating a character that already exists while the latter is using a famous dead actor to create a whole new character for...reasons (mainly publicity, I suspect - and it worked!)
It seems quite reductionist from the producers to think you can boil an actor down to simply their likeness. A performance isn't just about a persons face or body or voice - it's a lot more than that, involving interpretation and specific choices. Also, where does it end? Let's say you're making a movie set in the early 60s and you need some female leads. Why bother hunting for decent actresses when you can just put a CGI likeness of Marilyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn in there? While we're at it, why not make a few adjustments to their figures too, to make them more appealing to modern audiences?
It just seems so needless to me. Are there not enough decent actors out there to fill out the cast? Is a face more important than a performance?
I wonder if the eventual irony will be that its cheaper for hollywood to pay geeks a fortune to re-create dead actors than to pay new talent actors for big budget roles. Certainly the wages that some actors get are well into the realms of being utterly insane.
The Leia and Tarkin thing was a 'nice' way to finish off a prequel movie. The execution was a bit off, but the concept paid off.
Making a movie using the image of a dead actor is not the same. Neither Star Wars character or actor was billed on the posters/promotionals.
As has been said, the movie can probably do without James Dean, and some current actor could probably do a better job of it. But that way, they lose the James Dean branding. Is the movie so bad they need the name to make it work at all?
Voss wrote: _I_ didn't make any appeal to absolute morality.
But you did. You said, fairly clearly:
"But it is quite bizarre to take the contrary position: that the exact same thing is OK for one person and not OK for another, depending on who is getting digitized or what franchise they were in.
Dean is dead, Cushing is dead. Having either in a film is exactly equivalent, so 'Dean is wrong, but Cushing is OK' is pure cognitive dissonance."
So, you say that the moral issue at hand is absolutely clear, dead is dead, there is no difference in either case. That is absolute, there is no situational consideration, no extenuating circumstance, nothing. Again, that is exactly what appealing to an absolute is. Your point is, it is absolutely morally wrong.
How else should I read your post? What part am I misunderstanding, because I can't find any other way to read what you said that does not have it be an appeal to absolute morality. You said quite plainly that dead is dead, it doesn't matter who, or how, or when, or for what, it's always wrong. How is this not an absolute?
Gotta go with Voss and Azrael on this one, it seems very strange to me to declare Hollywood is in the wrong for dragging a performer out of the grave but it's fine in Cushing's case because of a prior one time appearance in a particular franchise. That's an incredibly arbitrary line to draw in the sand.
Except Peter Cushing didn't just make a "one time appearance". How many toys, comic books, cartoons, etc., have used his likeness?
At one point does it stop being Cushing's likeness as Tarkin and instead becomes Tarkin just happens to look like Cushing? At what point is it the character's face and not the actor's?
I don't know whether you're doing it on purpose or just by accident, but you are misrepresenting what Voss has been saying from the word go. Moreover, you're hung up about the moral absolutism when Voss has made it pretty clear that that's not the important part. Voss is saying that taking an absolutist position here is what doesn't make sense. That's what this:
"But it is quite bizarre to take the contrary position: that the exact same thing is OK for one person and not OK for another, depending on who is getting digitized or what franchise they were in."
... means.
H wrote: So, you say that the moral issue at hand is absolutely clear, dead is dead, there is no difference in either case. That is absolute, there is no situational consideration, no extenuating circumstance, nothing.
Because there aren't any extenuating circumstances. There is literally no difference between the two. That's not absolutism. That's just fact.
H wrote: Your point is, it is absolutely morally wrong.
Based on what metric? Your point seems more emotionally based than logically based.
Because money? Because publicity? Because nostalgia? Because genuine affection for the actor by the director/writer/producer/studio/whatever? All of the above.
What would it matter?
The Last Action Hero has a digital recreation of Humphrey Bogart in it. It's used as a sight gag. It was 1993. 26 years later (Jesus I'm getting old) we're doing it again.
The only people who get to have a say in this are the people in charge of his estate. They've said it's ok. That's as far as it goes.
I'd be quite interested if anyone should show me a distinction that could not subsequently be declared by some manner to be "arbitrary."
All judgement is arbitrary, unless there is some absolute ontic fount of judgement I am simply unaware of. I'm certainly not it and I can't imagine how anyone would they they are it either.
I think I did a pretty fair job making a case for a difference. To accuse me of cognitive dissonance smacks of the very same dissonance, presuming there is an absolute moral answer to the question and that is that.
So, you can say that MDG simply wants the cases to be different and only argues to this end, yet, the only case made is just the inverse, starting from the position that the cases must be the same, but with only the seeming evidence that all dead people are dead.
To me, at least MDG and I are making cases with what I can even find as arguments. The retrots aimed at us have only been to appeal to an absolute stance that all cases are the same because dead people are dead, ergo, nothing else applied to differentiate the cases.
Yet, I've provided at least one plausible reason why they might not be. And no one has even addressed it, to even point out why it would not be the case. I've asked for a reason why we should surmise that death is an absolute case that mitigates any other circumstance and situation and the only retort so far as been "I didn't appeal to an absolute."
If it's not, then what is it? If all cases of a dead actor are not absolutely equal and all uses not absolutely equal then what should we consider in each case?
No, the appeal made against me is to an absolute. That all cases are absolutely equal and that any attempt at distinction is mere "cognitive dissonance." Yet, nothing yet given has even the appearance of a substantive claim as to why this would be the case, despite me asking.
If there is a substantive claim which has been made as to why all cases are the same and why there is an absolute morality attached to them, then I profusely apologize and would ask that it be made again for my consideration.
In the meantime, I remain unswayed by what I can only see as claims to an absolute with no justification besides an absolute claim with no seeming justification.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Because there aren't any extenuating circumstances. There is literally no difference between the two. That's not absolutism. That's just fact.
I hardly see this to be the case. That is an absolute. I already pointed out a reason why the cases could be seen as not equivalent. You might not like it, you might not accept it, but it still is. It seems to me that you think this is a case of a fact of the matter. It's not, it's a case of the interpretation of the matter.
H wrote: Your point is, it is absolutely morally wrong.
Based on what metric? Your point seems more emotionally based than logically based.
There is no metric. I didn't appeal to an absolute, Voss did, by stating that all cases are absolutely the same. Sure, the word absolute wasn't used as such, but it is still an absolute.
There is no emotion in my case. I am not sure where you see it would enter. Here is the "logic."
Voss says:
All Xes are Ys. Since all Xes are wrong, all Ys are wrong.
That is an absolute. Absolute in that X=Y and in that "all Xes are wrong."
I asked why should we consider that either is the case? To which the only reply seems to be that all dead people are dead. I simply don't see how or why that proves that X=Y or that all Xes are wrong.
Indeed, it seems more the case that Voss, et. al, are making the emotional argument, based on the assertion without seemingly sufficient evidence that all cases are the same and that all cases are wrong.
Circumstances and situations do deem some actions morally acceptable where they would not be in others. Consider killing someone in self defense. Is killing OK? No. Is killing someone who is trying to kill you OK? We have to consider the circumstance and situation. Are we to deny the some cases of killing are different than others? Killing is not an absolute. Neither is using the likeness of a dead actor.
So again, I'm sorry that I don't accept the appeal to the absolute equality of cases, nor an absolute morality attached to them, since I see no evidence as to why I should.
No one has presented a reason why this shouldn't be done outside of arbitrary "This is fine, but this isn't" comparisons.
Besides, we don't have to show there isn't a distinction (can't prove a negative). It's you, H, and Grotsnik arguing that there is a difference. Burden of proof is on you.
H wrote:Indeed, it seems more the case that Voss, et. al, are making the emotional argument, based on the assertion without seemingly sufficient evidence that all cases are the same and that all cases are wrong.
You need to read what people actually write, not fill in non-existent blanks. I never claimed that it was wrong (I honestly don't care what people do with meat puppets after they're rotting) - just that Grotsnik's 'its morally wrong in _this_ instance but fine in _that_ instance was inconsistent.
You're arguing nonsense with a position I didn't take. If you want to argue with phantoms, feel free, but stop referencing me when you do it.
H wrote:Voss says:
All Xes are Ys. Since all Xes are wrong, all Ys are wrong.
Yeah, no. Never said that. Never said ANYTHING like that.
I said this:
We don't need to be absolutist about it. But it is quite bizarre to take the contrary position: that the exact same thing is OK for one person and not OK for another, depending on who is getting digitized or what franchise they were in.
No one has presented a reason why this shouldn't be done outside of arbitrary "This is fine, but this isn't" comparisons.
Besides, we don't have to show there isn't a distinction (can't prove a negative). It's you, H, and Grotsnik arguing that there is a difference. Burden of proof is on you.
My stance was not arbitrary any more so than yours is. I made the case a page ago that one could argue a notion of "implied consent" and MDG made the point, more so, that while it might be moral, there are notions related to the cases that are more or less distasteful. Ergo, that the cases can be seen as not equal.
Yet, it's persisted that, although we presented these notions that our points are not actual reasons. They are reasons and we have reasoned them. They are no more arbitrary than the counter point that they are simply equal. Why is my notion of implied consent not a reason? Why is it, in your estimation, "emotional" and "arbitrary?" If it is, then I will certainly reconsider it. You might not like it. You might not accept it. You might feel it doesn't apply. Yet, no one has made any case as to how or why it does not. Again, only a blanket absolutist case is made for no distinction on the basis of a tautological "all dead people are dead" basis. Sorry that I simply can't take that too seriously.
So, yes, my point is that an action can be more or less moral, more or less distasteful based on who does them, when they do them and why they did them. If you want an absolutist position, make the case for it. I've already made the case against it several times, but no one wants to accept the questions I am asking, only to double down that "there are no distinctions" despite examples of distinction I have offered, or clear cases where the argument that the morality of an action does seem to depend on who does it and why. But again, feel free to ignore that issue and simply assert that I have made no case.
We don't need to be absolutist about it. But it is quite bizarre to take the contrary position: that the exact same thing is OK for one person and not OK for another, depending on who is getting digitized or what franchise they were in.
Don't make me your personal strawman.
So, "the exact same thing" is not a statement of equality? Again, two cases presented, Cushing and Dean, you say they are the "exact same thing." This is not akin to X=Y, or if you like it better X=X? Please explain how so, because I have no idea how to read "the exact same thing" as meaning anything but a statement about equality.
The point at hand we were making that they are specifically not "the exact same thing." I have no idea why you assert that we have different, incongruent moral views on "the exact same thing." Our entire point is that a case can be made how they are not the same thing. How am I strawmanning you, in this case?
What you phrased as my "absolutionist" argument was either you're ok with it or not, and that any further rationalisation is arbitrary.
Now you're saying Voss is being absolutionist because he's drawing parity between the Dean and Cushing examples?
These are different stances, and you need to be clear on what basis you're arguing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and for extra credit, you can make clear how writing a movie with the express purpose of using a dead actor and writing a move with the inclusion of a character portrayed by a dead actor, choosing to include the character despite there being no narrative imperative to do so, and then choosing to digitally resurrect them over other possibilities is sufficiently different to warrant a coherent logical difference rather than simply an arbitrary line based on somebody's personal lines in the sand.
What you phrased as my "absolutionist" argument was either you're ok with it or not, and that any further rationalisation is arbitrary.
Now you're saying Voss is being absolutionist because he's drawing parity between the Dean and Cushing examples?
These are different stances, and you need to be clear on what basis you're arguing.
No, the equity statement is just the first step on the way to an absolute morality.
Because if all cases are equal, then what applies to one case absolutely applies to the other.
Also, it was not drawing a parallel. It was said they are "exactly the same." That is a parallel?
Furthermore, you said, "If you're willing to suggest a non yes/no answer to that question that isn't just an arbitrary delineation, I'm willing to discuss it." That is exactly what I am suggesting, that there is no binary yes or no answer. Yet, it's persisted that all the cases presented here are equal and that it's morally incongruous to suggest they might not be. If all cases are equal, then all cases are equally moral or not and that is absolutist. I am arguing against that.
I, and MDG, are saying that the cases are not equal and again, I've pointed out how and why one can make that case. Yet, still, it has persisted that I am not making any case. However, no one else has made anything besides the assertion that all cases here are equal based on, well, I don't know. That is arbitrary. The notion I presented about implied consent is not arbitrary as far as I can tell.
I agree they're not equal, what I'm saying is that they're so incredibly similar that drawing one's personal line at that precise point between them is a very odd, and arbitrary, place to put that line.
Azreal13 wrote: I agree they're not equal, what I'm saying is that they're so incredibly similar that drawing one's personal line at that precise point between them is a very odd, and arbitrary, place to put that line.
All I can say, is that I disagree. I think they are indeed subtle differences, but those subtle differences are crucial differences in making something either tasteful or distasteful, or more or less so.
Again, there is a huge difference in, say, using someone likeness, like Fisher, to "complete" something they were involved in and, say, using deep-fakes to put her in sexually explicit media, for example.
To MDG's point, I do think there is something very different, again, in using someone in a work "akin" to something they worked in, rather than in something they had nothing on which to even vaguely base a notion of consent. Not to mention the questionable nature of the efforts. Again, one could evoke (rightly or not) a notion of "completeness" in allowing Fisher to "complete" the role she had started. That at least has the air, to me, something at least superficially moral. Where, to me, doing it simply to generate controversy, or to capitalize monetarily on someone's likeness where they could not consent, is much more distasteful.
I find Cushing, Fisher and Dean's cases to all be distasteful, but certainly not equally so. And I do not find them to be morally equivalent, as such. If you want to call my "reasoning" arbitrary, well, I can't stop you. But if that is egregiously arbitrary to you, on what should we base moral judgement, in your opinion? Is it an empirical science? What objective morality can we rely on, in this case?
Yes, except middle managers are often the ones making the decisions on who and what to automate and therefore get to insulate themselves a bit.
Where the big money is involved, upper management/shareholders ALWAYS make the decisions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In the case of Tarkin and Leia, they should have just found actors that looked similar. Audiences 'get it'. People die. I'd rather get a living replacement that's on screen for lots of time than an obviously CGI'd person that's on screen for half a minute.
Soap operas have been replacing actors for decades without issue. Either don't use a character or find someone new to play it, CGI isn't going to give you the spontaneous moments that make great film.
Yes, except middle managers are often the ones making the decisions on who and what to automate and therefore get to insulate themselves a bit.
Where the big money is involved, upper management/shareholders ALWAYS make the decisions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In the case of Tarkin and Leia, they should have just found actors that looked similar. Audiences 'get it'. People die. I'd rather get a living replacement that's on screen for lots of time than an obviously CGI'd person that's on screen for half a minute.
Soap operas have been replacing actors for decades without issue. Either don't use a character or find someone new to play it, CGI isn't going to give you the spontaneous moments that make great film.
I can concur, as the only reason to bring back JD for an arbitrary movie is a greed issue, But, the world is full of stuff that someone will do/sell if they can make a nickel and really should not do it.
Azreal13 wrote: I agree they're not equal, what I'm saying is that they're so incredibly similar that drawing one's personal line at that precise point between them is a very odd, and arbitrary, place to put that line.
All I can say, is that I disagree. I think they are indeed subtle differences, but those subtle differences are crucial differences in making something either tasteful or distasteful, or more or less so.
Again, there is a huge difference in, say, using someone likeness, like Fisher, to "complete" something they were involved in and, say, using deep-fakes to put her in sexually explicit media, for example.
Yes, that's a huge difference. If we were discussing a scenario that distinct, you'd have fewer people disagree I'm sure. The case in point (Cushing v Dean, Fisher is a red herring as her circumstances are, at time of writing, not the least similar) is not very different at all. If you think those minute differences make a difference then that's fine, I have never once challenged anyone's right to hold their opinion, simply questioned the reasoning as to where they landed. Nobody, you included, has provided me anything like what feels like a sound reasoning for why one (Dean) is sufficiently more unappealing that it crosses the line that Cushing doesn't. But then, that's the nature of arbitrary isn't it?
To MDG's point, I do think there is something very different, again, in using someone in a work "akin" to something they worked in, rather than in something they had nothing on which to even vaguely base a notion of consent. Not to mention the questionable nature of the efforts. Again, one could evoke (rightly or not) a notion of "completeness" in allowing Fisher to "complete" the role she had started. That at least has the air, to me, something at least superficially moral. Where, to me, doing it simply to generate controversy, or to capitalize monetarily on someone's likeness where they could not consent, is much more distasteful.
Again, using existing footage in a movie I'm sure she'd already signed a contract for is nowhere near the same situation. De-ageing a living actress who is able to consent is not the same thing.
I find Cushing, Fisher and Dean's cases to all be distasteful, but certainly not equally so. And I do not find them to be morally equivalent, as such. If you want to call my "reasoning" arbitrary, well, I can't stop you. But if that is egregiously arbitrary to you, on what should we base moral judgement, in your opinion? Is it an empirical science? What objective morality can we rely on, in this case?
There is no objective morality, but there is a binary yes/no answer to the question "do you think dead people should be digitally resurrected for the entertainment of the general public?" You can apply caveats to the "yes" but it is still yes or no, and those caveats are going to be entirely personal and hence arbitrary.
Ultimately, what's the morale difference between an actor playing a dead person, and CGI'ing a dead person? Or animating a dead person? We do these things all the time without much comment, not sure why bringing Dean back in such a manner would cross a red line.
There is a helluva lot of difference between digitally adding a character who has a small supporting role in a couple of scenes (or in Carrie's situation -a single line) and digitally resurrecting an actors likeness to be the main character through an entire movie and billing the movie as "their" movie.
Cushing has a previous connection to the story his likeness was used in. This is by definition a motivated, rather than an arbitrary, use of his likeness. It's of course still perfectly possible to argue that it's wrong, but the idea that there is no difference between using someone's likeness for something with which that person has no previous connection and using someone's likeness for a continuation of a previous appearance is just per definition not true.
I'd personally argue that death means death. You can't consent to the usage of your likeness for something after your death, because you're dead (with exceptions for appearences that were okay'd before death, since you can still give consent then).
AegisGrimm wrote: There is a helluva lot of difference between digitally adding a character who has a small supporting role in a couple of scenes (or in Carrie's situation -a single line) and digitally resurrecting an actors likeness to be the main character through an entire movie and billing the movie as "their" movie.
Is there? Because, like so many others, you appear to be creating an arbitrary set of qualifiers.
"It's ok to do it this way, but not ok to do it this other way!" without actually saying why beyond your personal subjective morality.
This is why the word "arbitrary" keeps getting brought up in this thread.
Something I got thinking about lately as a tangent of this creepiness - at some point it's going to be possible to clone a human being with relative ease, and both crackpot fans and commercial organisations will be in a position to do it with just a DNA sample. I wonder what we'll rely on to stop them.
AegisGrimm wrote: There is a helluva lot of difference between digitally adding a character who has a small supporting role in a couple of scenes (or in Carrie's situation -a single line) and digitally resurrecting an actors likeness to be the main character through an entire movie and billing the movie as "their" movie.
Is there? Because, like so many others, you appear to be creating an arbitrary set of qualifiers.
"It's ok to do it this way, but not ok to do it this other way!" without actually saying why beyond your personal subjective morality.
This is why the word "arbitrary" keeps getting brought up in this thread.
Others have said why - because in the case of Cushing, for example, there was already a connection between the character and the actor whereas in the case of James Dean it seems to just be a publicity stunt more than anything. There's no reason why that character has to be played by a digitally resurrected long-dead actor. As I said in my first reply to this thread, for me, it's the difference between digitally creating a character and digitally recreating an actor. Rogue One is a case of the former, while this new film is a case of the latter and I don't see any good reason why you need a recreation of a dead actor rather than one of the thousands of living actors to portray that character.
Slipspace wrote: ... in the case of Cushing, for example, there was already a connection between the character and the actor...
Why does that matter?
Slipspace wrote: ... whereas in the case of James Dean it seems to just be a publicity stunt more than anything.
And what's wrong with that?
Slipspace wrote: There's no reason why that character has to be played by a digitally resurrected long-dead actor.
There's no reason why it shouldn't be either, as far as I can see, as so far no one has named one.
That's not true actually, as I can think of one: The estate doesn't approve of it. But they have, so, really, like I said at the start, what other discussion is there beyond that?
Slipspace wrote: As I said in my first reply to this thread, for me, it's the difference between digitally creating a character and digitally recreating an actor. Rogue One is a case of the former, while this new film is a case of the latter and I don't see any good reason why you need a recreation of a dead actor rather than one of the thousands of living actors to portray that character.
"This is right because X, but this is wrong because Y" isn't a distinction. There's no distinction there other than an arbitrary one you've created yourself.
You're never going to escape the fact that all morality is subjective. Subjective is not the same as arbitrary, however. Stop treating the two as being analogous.
While I don’t understand *why* a company would want to digitally recreate a (once) living person, I don’t have a real issue with it. Animation makes entire movies out of nothing. A movie with The Hulk in it has a monster with passing resemblance to the human that plays it... but that’s ok.
And if the actor were to pass away between now and the next movie, I wouldn’t have a problem with that same digitally created monster appearing again. I would personally recast the character, but that’s me.
Ultimately, I find it somewhat distasteful to provide an “opportunity” for employment to a dead person while living persons could fill the same role, and make use of those potential wages. That’s my personal concern with this. Setting up a series of “legacy” actors that might prevent new talent from maximizing their potential.
Dean versus Cushing is not analogous because Rogue One was not billed as "Starring Peter Cushing", whereas a new movie with "James Dean" only has his likeness.
It would be like digitally rendering John Wayne as the star of an entire new movie, and billing it as "New Cowboy movie- starring The Duke!". Because it's not showcasing his talent in any way, but they are banking on it like we are seeing a new character from a beloved actor.
Nowehere did Rogue One claim it was starring Carrie Fisher or Peter Cushing. Their likeness was just set dressing, no different than a character in Clone Wars being rendered in the likeness of an actor from the prequel trilogy but not voiced by their original actor, for the sake of continuity.
Azreal13 wrote: So your position is that you're ok with it as long as they market it correctly?
That's a dishonest way to frame what they said.
In one case, it's continuity for an existing character so the work as a whole doesn't suffer. Cushing opted into Star Wars - there's fine print you can argue about over whether he would have been happy to be used in this specific context, sure, but in principle we know he was. And the only way to represent that character in a way that completely communicates who it is, is by reusing his existing model.
In another, it's selling a whole new product based entirely around a fake version of the actor.
This is not some ongoing pet project that lost Dean at the last minute and picked one of two less than ideal options to proceed - from inception, it's an exploitative exercise. The difference isn't a semantic one.
It's ghoulish and disrespectful. When I die, I hope to donate my organs. I would like to think my family think well enough of me not to sell my carcass as a Halloween porch decoration instead.
Azreal13 wrote: So your position is that you're ok with it as long as they market it correctly?
That's a dishonest way to frame what they said.
No it isn't, it was a legitimate question because that's what I thought they were saying and it seemed odd, so I was asking for clarification. Please don't assume my motives or speak for other users.
In one case, it's continuity for an existing character so the work as a whole doesn't suffer. Cushing opted into Star Wars - there's fine print you can argue about over whether he would have been happy to be used in this specific context, sure, but in principle we know he was. And the only way to represent that character in a way that completely communicates who it is, is by reusing his existing model.
In another, it's selling a whole new product based entirely around a fake version of the actor.
Insaniak has already quite eloquently explained why Tarkin's inclusion was unnecessary and offered a plausible way that essentially the same story could have been told without him. There really is no convincing argument I've seen or can conceive that R1 needed Tarkin. So how is including a dead actor's character unnecessarily so very far from writing a film for that actor?
This is not some ongoing pet project that lost Dean at the last minute and picked one of two less than ideal options to proceed - from inception, it's an exploitative exercise. The difference isn't a semantic one.
You've decided it's exploitative. You've decided that it is somehow different to include an unnecessary character requiring digital resurrection to writing a movie with an unnecessary actor. Hence it's all arbitrary based on what you feel is right or wrong. This is getting circular.
It's ghoulish and disrespectful. When I die, I hope to donate my organs. I would like to think my family think well enough of me not to sell my carcass as a Halloween porch decoration instead.
Disrespectful to who? It has the blessing of his family.
Now I’m starting to feel bad for laughing at the John Wayne bit from the VHS release of Gremlins 2. Almost as bad as I do laughing at the Hulk Hogan bit from the theatrical cut.
Guess I need to look up the John Wayne Gremlins 2 thing, as I have no idea what the hell that's about.
I was desensitized to the whole CG face swap when they insisted on putting 80's Arnold in Terminator: Salvation. Even worse that it's established in the first movie that not every Terminator looks like him.
It was a film that was completed ~5 years after Bruce Lee's death. He filmed this for 6 months, but then went off to film something else. He died before he could come back to Game of Death.
They used body doubles and changed the script so that he was meant to be "disfigured" and in most cases wore a diguise They also used some cuts from other films and even.... a cardboard cutout! Yes!
Most of the typical Bruce Lee fighting sounds were canned and from other films - often being repeated man, many times.
Many of the actors would not return for this film and eventually were replaced in many scenes.
It was truly bizarre - apparently there was only 11 minutes of him actually in the film.
Bringing this back to James Dean and CGI... they've been talking about introducing CGI people in films since Final Fantasy - that was seen as the most lifelike film, but even that is obviously CGI.
I think there's no need to bring James Dean back - there are perfectly fine other actors out there - why bother? Someone still has to act the part - Agree with the OP that it's a different sense - bringing back someone in an iconic character and bringing back and actor just for the sake of it. I also agree with the other arguments that it's a pretty arbitrary line. If the estate are ok with it - I suppose thats the only way I can accept it - I'm not sure all actors will be happy with it happening.
Maybe it'll be written into wills or contracts in future - you can only play people in a series if you agree, in the event of your untimely death, that you will be CGI'd in future.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "It's ok to do it this way, but not ok to do it this other way!" without actually saying why beyond your personal subjective morality.
I don't get why "recreating a character from a previous movie in a sequel" is seen as the same as "recreating an actor to put him in a brand new movie"?
One is about a character, the other is about an actor. That seems simple enough to me. They've been creating characters wholesale for as early as the first animated cartoons. Hell, you could even count the first drawn stories there!
In the example given, there is no narrative imperative to include the character.
Therefore, including a character that the plot doesn't need, but purely on the basis of "wouldn't it be cool" and then choosing to resurrect rather than recast that character is only incrementally different from writing a whole movie thinking it would be cool to, completely unnecessarily, cast a digitised dead actor as the lead. Fundamentally the only difference is screen time and a small amount of precedent.
AegisGrimm wrote: There is a helluva lot of difference between digitally adding a character who has a small supporting role in a couple of scenes (or in Carrie's situation -a single line) and digitally resurrecting an actors likeness to be the main character through an entire movie and billing the movie as "their" movie.
Is there? Because, like so many others, you appear to be creating an arbitrary set of qualifiers.
"It's ok to do it this way, but not ok to do it this other way!" without actually saying why beyond your personal subjective morality.
This is why the word "arbitrary" keeps getting brought up in this thread.
Others have said why - because in the case of Cushing, for example, there was already a connection between the character and the actor whereas in the case of James Dean it seems to just be a publicity stunt more than anything. There's no reason why that character has to be played by a digitally resurrected long-dead actor. As I said in my first reply to this thread, for me, it's the difference between digitally creating a character and digitally recreating an actor. Rogue One is a case of the former, while this new film is a case of the latter and I don't see any good reason why you need a recreation of a dead actor rather than one of the thousands of living actors to portray that character.
You do realize there are multiple star wars video games with Tarkin, yes? Sometimes they use his lines from the film verbatim, others they hire a new voice actor. Sometimes the model is closely based on the actor's physical appearance, sometimes it isn't. And this has varied back and forth both while he was alive and after he was dead. In other situations, dead actors have been replaced by new actors for the same character. Nothing about Rogue One is about 'preserving/creating the character.' There are no more and no fewer 'good reasons' why you need a recreation rather than a living actor in either scenario.
Oddly enough Tarkin was played by Stephen Stanton in SW Rebels, who also did a voice in Rogue One (a random imperial admiral communicating with the ship when they're asking for landing clearance). Nothing stopped them from using him as Tarkin in Rogue One- and he arguably had more experience with the role.
AegisGrimm wrote: There is a helluva lot of difference between digitally adding a character who has a small supporting role in a couple of scenes (or in Carrie's situation -a single line) and digitally resurrecting an actors likeness to be the main character through an entire movie and billing the movie as "their" movie.
Is there? Because, like so many others, you appear to be creating an arbitrary set of qualifiers.
"It's ok to do it this way, but not ok to do it this other way!" without actually saying why beyond your personal subjective morality.
This is why the word "arbitrary" keeps getting brought up in this thread.
Others have said why - because in the case of Cushing, for example, there was already a connection between the character and the actor whereas in the case of James Dean it seems to just be a publicity stunt more than anything. There's no reason why that character has to be played by a digitally resurrected long-dead actor. As I said in my first reply to this thread, for me, it's the difference between digitally creating a character and digitally recreating an actor. Rogue One is a case of the former, while this new film is a case of the latter and I don't see any good reason why you need a recreation of a dead actor rather than one of the thousands of living actors to portray that character.
You do realize there are multiple star wars video games with Tarkin, yes? Sometimes they use his lines from the film verbatim, others they hire a new voice actor. Sometimes the model is closely based on the actor's physical appearance, sometimes it isn't. And this has varied back and forth both while he was alive and after he was dead. In other situations, dead actors have been replaced by new actors for the same character. Nothing about Rogue One is about 'preserving/creating the character.' There are no more and no fewer 'good reasons' why you need a recreation rather than a living actor in either scenario.
Oddly enough Tarkin was played by Stephen Stanton in SW Rebels, who also did a voice in Rogue One (a random imperial admiral communicating with the ship when they're asking for landing clearance). Nothing stopped them from using him as Tarkin in Rogue One- and he arguably had more experience with the role.
I didn't say the Tarkin recreation was a great reason, just more understandable than randomly deciding a whole new character is going to be "played" by a long-dead actor. Ultimately I have issues with both, but personally I see a difference between the two that, for me at least, makes the James Dean situation much less comprehensible and acceptable than the one with Tarkin. Personally, I think Tarkin in Rogue One is badly done for any number of reasons - one of the main ones is purely technical since the digital recreation is a little too much uncanny valley for me and it pulls me out of the story, so perhaps it would have been better to try a different actor altogether or just rewrite the story to not require him in the first place. Both would have been preferable, but when looking at the situation with James Dean I see it as a sliding scale of unacceptability and the use of James Dean is much further towards the completely unacceptable end than the use of Cushing as Tarkin.
Honestly, I think the case is quite straightforward. While it may be perfectly fine from legal standpoint, and it harms no one, most of us will feel it's wrong. It's like digging up a body to use in a puppet show. Logically there is nothing wrong with it either, but humans are hardly creatures of logic.
For clarity, I'm not arguing against using Dean's likeness.
I am literally just saying that comparing it, which is legally A-OK, to grave-robbing and probably a bunch of other offences that include words like 'abuse', 'desecration' and/or 'disturbing', is not a good comparison.
That it is, in fact, nothing at all like digging James Dean up and using his bones as a marionette - and not because we are illogical, because the comparison is.
Alpharius wrote: That was a general list, not a greatbigtree specific one!
Fair enough... it's probably about the right count though.
As for making use of a dead person's image, and casting them in a major role... it's just odd. Almost like someone is making a movie like that just to show off their CGI talents, to get jobs with other companies. Like advertising, except you get paid to advertise sort of thing.
Making a movie with CGI of dead actors for the lead roll only works for me if the entire cast is CGI dead actors playing the other characters. No living actors please.
I admit to having not read the thread, just want to ask if Andy Serkis will be playing the guy in ping pong ball suit over which the digital necromancers will superimpose the James Dean ghola?
One wonders how many current actors have looked into doing something similar.
Take, say, Harrison Ford.
Be much easier to license his younger/earlier appearances to do yet another unwanted & unneeded Indiana Jones movie than go through the whole process of recasting or rebooting possibly..?
The problem with actors like Harrison Ford is that they can get typecast into their younger self roles which means that they can't get jobs so easily which actually suit their older self. So you end up with oddities like an old Indiana who isn't really as indiana because he's not young and jumping around as much any more (or he only manages it with CGI and stand ins).
Personally I thought he did really great in Cowboys and Aliens the role he played fit his age and character and voice really well.
reds8n wrote: One wonders how many current actors have looked into doing something similar.
Take, say, Harrison Ford.
Be much easier to license his younger/earlier appearances to do yet another unwanted & unneeded Indiana Jones movie than go through the whole process of recasting or rebooting possibly..?
Rumour is Tom ‘nutter who ruins movies because of his colossal ego’ Cruise insists on digital de-ageing. So seems it’s already kind of a thing. But for vanity’s sake.
An estate is there to oversee and protect a legacy, so there are going to be restrictions on how that deceased individual's likeness is going to be used. I would dread to think of all the legal challenges involved in getting such permission in the first place...
There is something to be said for using persons of historical importance as means of education, entertainment and mental well being. In Star Trek The Next Generation we are introduced to the Holodeck which can "summon" a digital recreation of such persons. Something I would love to experience in VR(or AR - or the Holodeck, as you never know!) is a master class with Ray Harryhausen or Bob Ross. While it could be abused, I still believe it can be used for good and to improve our way of life and protect a legacy by teaching the generations to come.
Todays dilemmas with computers are traced back to Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park. Computers are now an important part of our daily lives, and AI is now the new frontier but are we showing discipline for this technology? Bringing back something from the past is an idea we are fascinated with but should we? Those films are not merely legendary for their milestone vfx, but also as a sign and warning of things to come.
I saw Rogue One twice on release. The first time was magical seeing Carrie Fisher as she was in the mid-1970s and never did I hope to see Peter Cushing on the big screen, for I was too young to see his films in his time. Carrie Fisher then passed away merely days later and even though I had never met the woman it stung, so seeing the film a second time(about two weeks later) was different experience for that last shot. But as difficult as it was, it was a welcome moment during that depressing winter. Not a problem for The Last Jedi, I actually loved Carrie's "Mary Poppins" moment and felt all giddy when the film did something fantastic when we thought Leia would perish in space because Carrie had left us in real life...on with the show! It felt a bit like the first time we saw that tall Brachiosaurus in Jurrasic Park; Carrie would be staying with us for the rest of the film, and even into the one beyond! In fact, I think it might have been completely disrespectful doing away with Leia at that point as a "second death" would have been a bit too much to cope with! I suppose this christmas we shall hopefully be able to say good bye in a less painful way given some time. But like the Brachiosaurus...is it right to do so?
Is this in any way healthy for Carrie's family? They have given their blessing for even CGI to be used, but even so there is going to be Carrie's face all over the box office which could be difficult to cope with for the family itself who are deep down trying to move on.
As with every aspect of human life, this will continue to challenge us.
SamusDrake wrote: An estate is there to oversee and protect a legacy, so there are going to be restrictions on how that deceased individual's likeness is going to be used. I would dread to think of all the legal challenges involved in getting such permission in the first place...
"Dear Sir/Madam,
We see from our records that you hold the rights to the likeness of James Dean.
We would like to license same, in return for buckets of hard cash.
BlaxicanX wrote: Tupac """appeared"""for a concert like 7 years ago (as a hologram). A bit late to try to fight this battle imo.
Was that just a 3D-fied version of his part in a music video?
Or, did they manipulate the image to present, and perform 'live'?
Showing recordings of people who are now dead is nothing new. We have been doing that ever since as the first person on recorded onto film died.
But, using tech to make them do things the recordings could not show, that is more recent.
The death of the inherently indexical photograph (the idea that photographs accurately depict a snapshot of reality) is approaching with great speed. Arguably it should already be dead.
SamusDrake wrote: An estate is there to oversee and protect a legacy, so there are going to be restrictions on how that deceased individual's likeness is going to be used. I would dread to think of all the legal challenges involved in getting such permission in the first place...
"Dear Sir/Madam,
We see from our records that you hold the rights to the likeness of James Dean.
We would like to license same, in return for buckets of hard cash.
Yours,
Ghoulish Necromancers"
"Dear Ghoulish Necromancers,
Sure.
Yours,
The Rights-Holders"
Fin.
Even the asking is shades of grey.
For Carrie Fisher, I think it's pretty obvious had it not been for her untimely passing, she would've taken part in Episode IX.
Peter Cushing? Well, I guess it comes to down to whether or not his estate felt he valued the role of Tarkin. If he greatly enjoyed it, and his return had occurred in his lifetime, reasonable assumption is he might've agreed to physically return. And according to the Wiki, he was satisfied with the role.
Wiki (yes, I know, but there are citations) wrote:When Star Wars was first released in 1977, most preliminary advertisements touted Cushing's Tarkin as the primary antagonist of the film, not Vader;[120] Cushing was extremely pleased with the final film, and he claimed his only disappointment was that Tarkin was killed and could not appear in the subsequent sequels. The film gave Cushing the highest amount of visibility of his entire career, and helped inspire younger audiences to watch his older films.[9][121][122]
And here, had the estate declined the use of his likeness, then a work around could've been achieved (as others have suggested here).
But James Dean here? Totally different. It's not a belated sequel, or using modern technology to finish his 'final role'. It's exactly as Excommunicatus put in the quote above - money.
The world revolves around the (stupid) idea that we perform labour and in return receive hard cash.
The MCU is, IMO, an utterly artless series of pro-U.S. propaganda films designed to do little else but rake in buckets of cash.
So what?
While we live in a Capitalist world, "they're in it for the money" is not a valid criticism.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The death of the inherently indexical photograph (the idea that photographs accurately depict a snapshot of reality) is approaching with great speed. Arguably it should already be dead.
That pic was edited somewhere between 1930 and 1940, to exclude Yezhov. The Cottingley Fairies were 'photographed' in 1917.
So, you haven't been able to take a photo at face value for at least the last century.
Difference here is that some poor mook is going to have to MoCap for ‘James Dean’, and won’t get the full soldier’s shilling.
Given James Dean is best remembered for his attitude, physical acting, body language and that is a major part.
And I very much doubt the studio will be paying James Dean’s estate top whack Hollywood wage.
So it’s all on the cheap, aiming for a large profit.
It’s just so utterly needless. And I firmly hope that the wider movie going public rejects such shenanigans, and the film loses the studio money.
Worse, to the best of my research, James Dean had no direct descendants. And was an Only Child. So who exactly is in charge of his estate? Who is making the money here? Do they actually deserve it?
We don't care about workers; especially not when doing so 'disadvantages' some poor little multinational corporation.
Spoiler Alert: The entire TV and film industry is grossly wasteful and almost entirely unnecessary and there are millions and millions of BGs, stand-ins and doubles that would kill for the right to wear that ping-pong suit.
What about them? Right, we don't care about them. Apparently we only care about some poor A-lister being jipped.
Per the Hollywood Reporter, likeness rights were "obtained" from "his family".
Because cash grab or not, even the best paid actors and actresses are putting in some work.
When one casts say, Robert Downey Junior or Angelina Jolie, at least its them putting in the effort.
Making a ‘new’ James Dean movie, when the guy tragically died decades before most modern movie goers were born? It’s crass, distasteful and ghoulish.
As already covered, if it was an attempt to finish his last role? Still a bit grave robbery, but somewhat justified, after a fashion.
This is just sheer, naked greed. An attempt to literally cash in on a name, where the actual actor does less work than Tom Bloody Cruise.
I for one find this morally reprehensible. I’m a smart man, but I’m confounded in trying to find any kind of justification for this.
You want to make the big bucks in Hollywood? You either need to invest in an all-star cast and craft something decent, or take a serious punt on a maverick director who can make a solid film for a pittance and turn that into millions if not billions.
I get you’ve a chip on your shoulder about Marvel - but they are solid, reliable, entertaining fare. They’ve earned their massive profits by making objectively decent movies. Some better than others, natch. But it still required clever casting, good stories and solid SFX.
This? This is simply grave robbing. It’s using a likeness, and giving it top billing. To me, it’s morally unjustifiable. Especially when James Dean died what, 66 years ago - before any kind of CGI occurred. Before even rotoscoping really hit.
The whole permission thing is basically tapping up someone who likely never met the man or his parents, and saying ‘we’ll give you cash if you let us dig up his body’.
Again, see my comparison above for Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing. At least behind those are people who knew and deeply love them giving their blessing, on account we can reliably confirm if not exactly what they would’ve wanted, they wouldn’t have objected, because they’re roles the deceased actively enjoyed.
You need to spend some time on-set. I think you'd be really, really surprised by how few shots have the 'name' in them. Unless it involves a relative close-up of the face, chances are extremely good that you're looking at a stand-in actor.
I spent a fortnight working in Locations on a Netflix show that you would definitely have heard of over the summer. The shot(s) all involved [A-list name]'s character, but [A-list name] was not even in Canada at the time. They used a stand-in for all of them. All of [A-list name]'s acting took place in studio.
Your objections all boil down to "I subjectively don't like this particular instance". Which is fine, but it's not a fruitful avenue for debate.
My objection to Marvel is the same; I subjectively do not like movies featuring conventionally-attractive people quipping in between blocks of nakedly pro-U.S. propaganda, but I recognize that it s a subjective opinion and nobody else has to care.
It also doesn't mean I try to get Captain America: The Quest for Geo-Political Significance shut down in post.
SamusDrake wrote: An estate is there to oversee and protect a legacy, so there are going to be restrictions on how that deceased individual's likeness is going to be used. I would dread to think of all the legal challenges involved in getting such permission in the first place...
"Dear Sir/Madam,
We see from our records that you hold the rights to the likeness of James Dean.
We would like to license same, in return for buckets of hard cash.
Yours,
Ghoulish Necromancers"
"Dear Ghoulish Necromancers,
Sure.
Yours,
The Rights-Holders"
Fin.
If it were that easy you'd have Laurence Oliver, Bruce Lee, Orson Welles, Richard Attenbourough, Fay Wray and Peter O'Toole all over the shop(well, the big screen).
Yes, Hollywood is obviously a greedy money-making machine, and has got away with a lot since the dawn of the cinema. But make no mistake - copyright, likeness and legal issues are fiercely contended behind the scenes. For the last decade we have had the technology to do digital doubles of deceased actors and historical persons, and the money to get the job done, but the legal challenges involved have led to most being dead ends. The most successful attempts have been tasteful efforts with the deceased actor having some history with the filmmaker(but not in everycase). Examples being are The Crow, Gladiator and Rogue One.
And let us not pretend that there are no such thing as Actors groups to put the boot in...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Excommunicatus wrote: You need to spend some time on-set. I think you'd be really, really surprised by how few shots have the 'name' in them. Unless it involves a relative close-up of the face, chances are extremely good that you're looking at a stand-in actor.
I spent a fortnight working in Locations on a Netflix show that you would definitely have heard of over the summer. The shot(s) all involved [A-list name]'s character, but [A-list name] was not even in Canada at the time. They used a stand-in for all of them. All of [A-list name]'s acting took place in studio.
Your objections all boil down to "I subjectively don't like this particular instance". Which is fine, but it's not a fruitful avenue for debate.
My objection to Marvel is the same; I subjectively do not like movies featuring conventionally-attractive people quipping in between blocks of nakedly pro-U.S. propaganda, but I recognize that it s a subjective opinion and nobody else has to care.
It also doesn't mean I try to get Captain America: The Quest for Geo-Political Significance shut down in post.
This whole topic aside, I'm genuinely interested in your work! What other stuff have you done in the past - that you are allowed to talk about?
What other stuff have you done in the past - that you are allowed to talk about?
