Do you think it's morally wrong to digitally recreate a dead person's face just for the sake of having a character in...

Do you think it's morally wrong to digitally recreate a dead person's face just for the sake of having a character in your movie that nostalgic fans will like?

yeah

Yes. But i would expect no less from Disney

Ask /his/

As long as their families are ok with it, and are paid accordingly

>commander of he death star from ANH in a movie about the death star
>lel didney pandering to man babbies

It made perfect sense for him to be there.

things will be so much easier once all actors are digital creations ala hatsune miku

How will you feel when Carrie Fisher makes an appearance in ep IX as CGI?

in teh future all actors will be dead

>Disney
>morals

really

makes

you

think

>just for the sake of having a character in your movie that nostalgic fans will like?

Tarkin is the commander of the Death Star about an hour after R1 ends. How is that about nostalgia? God you're an idiot.

it's worse having everyone forget about you entirely, if peter cushing were able to speak he'd probably be happy with it. digital resurrection is the next best thing to immortality.

It made sense for Tarkin to appear in Rogue One, but I don't know why he had to appear in the guise he did. I think they could have easily just had him appear via hologram and it wouldn't have looked as bad, and he didn't need to be in as many scenes as he was.

Your premise is false.

>Do you think it's morally wrong to digitally recreate a dead person's face for the sake of plot consistency

The answer is no. I do not think it is morally wrong.

No, I dont. Not at all actually. What a retarded opinion

Yes, actors made their wealth by selling their faces and bodies pretending to be someone else. It shouldn't even be a question.

The real deal is, is CGI advanced enough to make these computer-generated people realistic?

I didn't think Tarkin was too bad, considering the screentime he got. Cushing died years ago anyway and the actor playing him did a pretty good job of nailing the voice and mannerisms.

The CGI Leia was awful even for a few seconds of screentime. I watched it today and it was fucking eerie especially considering Carrie Fisher only died yesterday.

No? Who gives a shit?

Would you have preferred a big rubbery mask like revenge of the sith? Why? Thats the same shit but practical.
Theres no moral issue here.

>Yes,
Meant to say "No" to the question "Is it morally WRONG".
I read that wrong.

Fuck actors. They're lucky people even give a shit about them after their deaths and don't recast a young look-a-like.

>is CGI advanced enough to make these computer-generated people realistic?
Give it five years or so

No

Obviously but they did a respectful job and really nailed the character. Tarkin is a great villain and I was thrilled to see more of him. The power struggle between himself and Krennic was interesting. But yeah, it's still weird and somewhat unethical.

The image of your face is not your property. Only your physical face is

It´s not morally wrong

No. It is a character first, not a person.

He portrayed a character, that is what film making is all about. Since they own Star Wars, they own that character's likeness.

Only if you have reason to believe that the actor would have been against it. You could argue that some sort of royalties should be paid to the family too.

It's not morally wrong but it's disrespectful to his craft as an actor.

If the CGI animators and voice over actor give a bad performance, Peter has no control over the situation because he is dead. Yet a performance linked to him as an individual is what the audience sees.

If you ask people what they dislike about modern cinema, a frequent complaint is that an individual screen writer's vision increasingly gives way to rewrites by committee. Committees and large groups of people write and rewrite films into oblivion now in order to maximize and tweak every possible demographic subgroup, hoping to please everyone. I think most people would agree that their efforts are not appreciated and make bland, overly-built films. Now this exact system of entertainment manufacturing by committee will extend to performances on the screen using dead actors.

Tarken wasn't one actor giving one performance, it was a team of technicians. Performances of this sort are by design going to end up safe, restrained, conservative, in other words, boring.

The magic of acting is that we consent to believe that and individual is playing someone he is not on stage, and we become swept away by the direct human experience.

The first time this technique of using digital necromancy on dead performers was used was to make poor Fred Astaire sell vacuum cleaners. In the commercial he was dancing up a storm and his partner was a fucking vacuum cleaner. People at the time complained that it cheapened his skills as a dancer to use them without his consent to sell whatever anyone wanted. They were right.

This, and Cushing's family signed off on it.

I think he looked fine desu but whatever its understandable criticism unlike the poor character development meme.

Yes, unquestionably. And the cheaper and shittier the CGI the more egregious the offense.

>morally

subjective

also:
oh fucks sake
get over yourself

This pretty much.

To get more into specifics as far as Rogue One was concerned, whoever (or whatever team of animators) "portrayed" Tarkin did a poor job, which is insulting to Cushing. Questionable CG aside, the "performance" was too animated (no pun intended). Cushing never used too many quirks like lip curling and exaggerated facial expressions in his acting, so it was extremely off-putting to watch this CG Cushing puppet "act" in a way Cushing never would have.

Cushing's performance is 1977 was very cool and clinical. he was a very understated villain. the CGI puppet villain was a snarling glaring beast. Poor Mr. Cushing im glad he can't see his own image used in that way

Not sure if it's morally wrong but it makes me feel uneasy. You can argue it's ok because his estate gave permission but they're not the ones who are being pranced around as a weird CGI face in a Disney flick

I don't want to see it become a widespread thing

>I don't want to see it become a widespread thing

studios can't wait for poor Sean Connery to die so his greedy heirs can use his face to make dozens of shitty James Bond films

No.

he gave the best performance in the film, better than Guinness or Hamill or Ford

If his family signed off on it (which they would have to in a case like this), then who gives a shit? I also thought he looked a lot better in motion than I was expecting, despite the slight uncanny valley effect.