Actors are now trying to control how they're portrayed in CGI after their death
Considering the film's been on release for two weeks now, we can at last clarify that we were talking about the digital resurrection of Peter Cushing, who played Grand Moff Tarkin in the 1977 film. For those who may be unaware, Peter Cushing passed away in 1994 and the character of Tarkin was played in Rogue One was played by Guy Henry, with highly advanced CGI used to make him look like Peter Cushing.
Tarkin wasn't just a one-scene trick in Rogue One either, but a fully-fledged supporting character and the first of its kind to do so.
With the untimely and tragic passing of Carrie Fisher, there's speculation underway as to what will happen with Episode IX in 2019. CGI and digital effects have been employed when actors pass away during the middle of production. Oliver Reed's work in Gladiator had to be digitally altered to fit scenes he was due to film before he passed, whilst Paul Walker's brothers, Caleb and Cody, were used to stand in for him following his passing in 2013.
Moreover, many actors are now reportedly trying to negotiate to ensure their likeness is not used after their death.
A report by Reuters has stated that a number of well-known actors and entertainers are now actively working to protect their image from being used after their passing. Mark Roesler, who is one of the top agents governing celebrity estates, has said that at least twenty-five of his clients are negotiating how they and their loved ones' images will be used after they're gone. "They understand that their legacy will continue beyond their lifetime," Roesler explained to Reuters.
As it stands, the law is somewhat murky when it comes to posthumous performances and many entertainers are placing stipulations on their image being used after their passing. Robin Williams, for example, banned any use of his image from commercial means until 2039 and specified that he was not to be digitally reinserted into a film or TV show or through the use of holograms.
The larger question is, however, whether or not people actually want this to become a part of films and television. What do you think? Let us know in the comments!
FIN
Ryder Jones
Studios own all likenesses of the characters. Actors btfo.
Adam Brown
Once we can produce high quality CG of people then actors will be obsolete.
Sebastian Garcia
I fucking knew it. A while ago in a thread I was discussing the legal implications of this. I mean, sure, the Cushing Estate approved it, and presumably Disney paid them, but did they legally NEED approval or NEED to pay them?
Using CGI is just a fancy way of applying a costume, if you think about it. And I'm pretty sure you don't need to pay royalties any time a movie use costume/makeup/etc to make an actor look like a real figure, alive or dead.
Jacob Cruz
It should only be done with the consent of the actor themselves. Not money grabbing relatives
Kevin Green
We are extremely close to having CGI actresses getting BLACKED on camera and i for one cannot wait. I've already started a countdown as to when Emma Watson gets to be in one.
Alexander Gomez
fucking no, disney owned all likeness of the character.
Gabriel Cook
>And I'm pretty sure you don't need to pay royalties any time a movie use costume/makeup/etc to make an actor look like a real figure, alive or dead.
No, if for example you dress up as Batman, DC Comics can demand you cease doing so or pay them.
There was a story a couple of years back about some guy in Pennsylvania(?) who built a version of the Batmobile (from the gay tv series) and dressed up as Batman and went around (for free) to hospitals putting on shows for sick kids and such and DC sent lawyers out to threaten him with lawsuits.
Hudson Diaz
YOUR SOUL HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY NECROMANCER MICKEY.
DO NOT TRY TO FIGHT IT
YOU WILL BE RESURRECTED AS A DIGITAL GHOST, AND FORCED TO WORK FOR US. FOREVER. FOR FREE
Noah Price
This. Ten years from now the same people will beg Hollywood to buy the rights for their virtual image because that will be the only way for them to make money.
Noah Bailey
>play a character in a star wars movie >Disney now owns your soul and keeps your corpse forever animated with CGI and motion capture to appear in yearly movies from now until the end of time
Jacob Peterson
Not really. It takes probably hundreds or even thousands of man-hours to get a couple of these CGI-face scenes up to snuff. It costs a hell of a lot of time, money, and effort to do it. It will always be more viable to just have an actual character stand in front of a camera and say something *when possible*
The utility of this tech is in recreating characters that were played by dead actors without having to recast. For instance, had this been a thing a couple years ago, Nolan might have CGI'd the Heath Ledger Joker into a cameo or side role in TDKR, for better or for worse.
Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with just recasting a new actor when necessary.
Hudson Perry
Oh no the professional LARPers are losing a bit of the stranglehold they've managed to glean over the years.
Poor dears :(
Andrew Myers
>Studios own all likenesses of the characters. Actors btfo.
No, the studios only own the likeness of the character in that particular movie or tv show, if they want to make a _new_ movie or tv show with the same character, they need a new agreement with the actor (or his estate) and must pay him/her.
In the case of Peter Cushing, his family signed off on the deal because it was free easy money for them and seeing as how he's dead, he can't complain.
Dylan Barnes
Is it bad that the second face from the left looks more realistic than the final product?
Adam Williams
Why didn't anyone care when they had another actor impersonate him in ROTS or when they used his likeness in shitty cartoons?
Brandon Nelson
Why are people complaining about this now? For years, Carrie Fisher was making jokes about how George Lucas owned the right to her appearance and he could do anything he wanted with it. The other cast members were kind of quiet about it, but it always seemed like it bugged her, because she brought up all the stupid shit with her face on it that she had no say in and said stuff like "I can't look in the mirror without paying George Lucas."
And it's not like this was handled poorly. Disney asked Cushing's family for permission, probably paid them, and always said he regretted not being able to do a Star Wars sequel. There's really no reason for anyone to care about this, because he would have been okay with it.
Robert Parker
Cause ROTS Tarkin looked less like Peter Cushing and more like a spoopy skeleton
It's the precedent it sets, and the legal implications, as stated in the original post.
Samuel Sanders
>disney got permission from cushing's family so it's okay
Cushing never had kids. The owners of his estate are probably 2nd-cousins-once-removed or something distant. From what I understand, Cushing probably wouldn't have cared anyway, but this is a bad argument because the owner of an estate could potentially just be some distant relative that doesn't give a fuck and just wants free money.
Isn't that the changling guy from DS9?
Cameron Baker
This is just the beginning. Why would Hollywood pay millions to Ben Affleck to play Batman when you can make a completely CGI actor that never ages, looks like comic book Batman and is voiced by Kevin Conroy.
Josiah Sanchez
Because that was a different actor and depiction of the character, not literally using the actor's face.
Lucas Brooks
Because it costs millions to properly animate CGI tarkin for those few minutes of screentime alone?
Liam Gutierrez
Because most neurotypical people watch movies for their stars. This revelation of how far they'll go to include certain faces if their think they'll help the movie doesn't bring the CGI actor revolution that will never happen any nearer.
Brayden Rogers
>Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with just recasting a new actor when necessary. this. what the fuck is the big problem here?
Leo Roberts
Then why not care about the precedent set by using his likeness in cartoons, merchandising stuff, and other tie-in media? Lucas, and now Disney, used his image for tons of things (and mostly after his death, as far as I know), so why do people only care now?
It's been common knowledge for years that Star Wars actor don't have licensing rights, and their appearances can be used for anything without their approval. I'm not arguing that's there's nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying it's kind of stupid to start talking about whether that's right after no one had a problem with it before. And its especially weird because out of everyone, Cushing probably would have had the least problems with it.
>It was so impressive, in fact, that Cushing’s former secretary — Joyce Broughton, who oversees his estate and attended the film’s London premiere with her grandchildren — was taken aback emotionally when she saw the creation on screen.
>“When you’re with somebody for 35 years, what do you expect?” Broughton says. “I can’t say any more because I get very upset about it. He was the most beautiful man. He had his own private way of living.”
>Broughton, who was bequeathed Cushing’s estate when he died without an heir in 1994, was reticent to go into details about the situation due to a confidentiality agreement she signed with Disney and Lucasfilm. But despite the emotions, she said she was dazzled by the experience of the new film.
>“I have to say, I’m not a ‘Star Wars’ fanatic, but I did think whoever put it together were absolutely fantastic,” she says. “It’s not just a silly sort of thing. It’s really good!”
Charles White
> Then why not care about the precedent set by using his likeness in cartoons, merchandising stuff, and other tie-in media?
Because the merchandising and such is a different legal issue and based on existing (and already payed for) work while a cartoon, isn’t the actor’s likeness.
In this case, Disney were using the _exact likeness_ of the actor in a new production and thus they had to get permission from Peter Cushing’s estate to do so.
Though no doubt the studio and network lawyers are working on crafting legal agreements that would allow them to use an actor’s likeness forever in multiple new productions, without paying the actor a dime…
Ryan Garcia
scorpius from farscape
Jace Nguyen
people attach actors to characters and sometimes take it further and mix actor and character
Look at Chekov in Star Trek. So far it sounds like they're not going to recast him after Anton Yelchin died
Anthony Evans
It's almost as if technology advances very quickly in a short span of time, and that within a few years these effects will be easily attainable, fast, and cheap.
Joshua Fisher
cgi was a mistake
Caleb Harris
Why chat like this is a new thing just because it appeared in your precious shitwars? fuck off back to plebbit
Brayden Long
>state of the art technology >money is no issue >still looks like shit
How do they do it?
Wyatt Morales
Only good post in this thread.
Matthew Lee
time is usually a big issue for effects. Its all done late post production
Christian Parker
>Moreover, many actors are now reportedly trying to negotiate to ensure their likeness is not used after their death.
Here's an easy solution:
Hire a real actor, and just put him/her in make up and make them look enough like the original character to where you can tell who it is, but the original person can't be butthurt because it's not a 1:1 CGI zombie version of them.
Problem fucking solved. CGI people was a mistake in the first place and I'd be glad to see it gone.
Brandon Perez
Time and money. Maybe technology has advanced enough that we could make perfect CGI but the problem is it would take insane amounts of time and money.
Anthony Harris
no it's motherfucking scorpius from farscape and I was fucking flabbergasted they didn't re-use him. He was fucking perfect.
Nolan Harris
At least tell us how much longer until the countdown hits zero
Isaiah Ortiz
Looks like S1M0NE is becoming a reality.
Jackson Nguyen
>Hire a real actor, and just put him/her in make up and make them look enough like the original character It didn't work very well when they tried doing it to Crispin Glover.
Also, that's basically what happened with Tarkin. There was a real actor there, his face was just altered with CGI to make him look more like Peter Cushing.
William Lee
Most of the tech is already there, just needs refinement. For example, The Hobbit used real-time motion capture to instantly turn Andy Serkis' acting into Gollum on a screen in front of Jackson. Sure it was just a basic Gollum model, but like I said, it just needs refinement. And lighting, but you are already paying hundreds of manhours for lighting technicians anyway.
Once the technology is perfected, you can get any two-bit actor to motion-capture the scenes and be instantly transformed into whatever the director wants. The director could even do all the scenes himself and skip actors all together.
