Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

So your position is that you're ok with it as long as they market it correctly?

 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.

They could do both... after your donation you'd probably be a scarier decoration.

Casualty wrote:

 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.

Weird, I watched Game of Death last night.

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!

Sigh.

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.

Easy E wrote:Soon, IP laws will have to encompass your likeness, handwriting style, speech patterns, and brain waves as being your own IP.

FTFY ^

Also, it already protects three of those four things.

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

Voss wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

Grave-robbing is not "perfectly fine" from a "legal standpoint".

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Grave-robbing is not "perfectly fine" from a "legal standpoint".

In this case, with family consent.

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.

For what it’s worth, I would pay to see human skeleton marionettes in a puppet show.

#11 in things you probably shouldn’t admit to, online or otherwise.

I’m only mildly concerned that you’re keeping track.

That was a general list, not a greatbigtree specific one!

Tupac """appeared"""for a concert like 7 years ago (as a hologram). A bit late to try to fight this battle imo.