Is it ethical to make CGI puppets of dead actors to use for movies?
When is it ok? Is it fine for a franchise they have already been in?
What if its a totally new movie that had nothing to do with the original actor and they are used, is that more or less ethical?
Discuss.
A quick scene in a franchise that comes back after a long time like a quick Leia cgi in star wars or some shit is ethical to me. Making movies where these CGI characters actually have a big role might cross the line. I'm not sure how to feel about Tarkin being back as an animation, even though he was kind of needed in the film.
They should've just casted a slightly younger actor that looks kind of like him.
His family was fine with it so I don't really see the problem desu
Nothing about Rogue One was needed.
There are actually SAG rules about this because of what they did to Crispin Glover in Back to the Future 2. I have no idea how those apply to the deceased though, hopefully it requires approval by next of kin or the estate of the deceased, but who knows.
I didnt really mean it like, it's totally out of order to do it. If his family is fine with it sure thats great. I dont really know about having CGI actors at all desu. It's always slightly noticable at least and will always divide the audience.
I agree, it could've been something cool and original like the new blade runner, unfortunately that never happened
Having estates decide this kind of shit is still iffy
I mean its highly likley his family just sold his image for a quick buck, not giving a thought to what he would have actually wanted.
I assume we are going to start having actors needing to sign aware their likeness to be used post-mortem now if they sign on for franchises.
Ethical, I don't know. Courteous, certainly not.
You're a rerarded faggot. Never post again.
>rerarded
Needed to be one good prequel, didn't there?
Disney will cgi a young christoper lee to play count dooku in one of their nu-wars films
They can even get Corey Burton to do his voice like in Kingdom Hearts
It was fine as long as the estate profits and it is done in good taste.
I'd rather have cgi than a new actor that doesn't look the part.
lmao, if that happened I could only really laugh at it
but CGI looks worse than just recasting + makeup would
I think in a few years though the CGI will become indistinguishable from reality, and we will see more films trying out CGI actors
I want CGI movies full of cute girls. Would Hollywood intentionally make it's CGI actors ugly?
youtube.com
theguardian.com
>Audrey Hepburn™ © 2013 Sean Hepburn Ferrer and Luca Dotti. All rights reserved.
This, it's like saying that the only thing an actor has of worth is his likeness, not his talent.
He may be dead but he continues to live on, seriously he's fucking dead and had a roll in a new star wars film.
ethical is debatable to death. Is it legal and how to regulate it is a more interesting one.
Should there be time limit?
Should there be clauses about what is allowed or not for every actor's cg double past their death? Could we make a porn with a CG double of Marilyn Monroe?
And what happens when it goes to the public domain 75 years or so down the line?
Can we make a new Chaplin?
I mean this is endless questions and possibilities. Lawyers will be busy with this shit for a long fucking time.
Its weird really because I do think there is a problem doing this.
On the other hand I've seen a lot of Peter Cushing ones. There are some great ones, but its hard to argue he put the sanctity of his image ahead of making a quick buck either.
Cushing is a good example of someone who had to die before everyone decided he was "legendary" etc.
should be legally regulated
Did their family get money for this out of curiosity? I refuse to believe Disney owns their likeness forever and ever to profit however they wish.
Its even better because Star Wars only became Disney a few years ago, the mouse can just go around buying peoples likenesses to use decades after they die, seriously who can stop them if they just decide to cast dead actors for their movies? They are the most powerful company in the business.
So Ep 9 will have a CGI old Leia right?
Ethical? In Hollywood? OP are you 12?
I've always thought one of the greatest weaknesses of movies as a medium, especially with long-running series, is the possibility of an actor dying and having to redo the plot because of it. If this new technology can mitigate that threat to keep the original ideas intact, then I support it. Your second example is kinda fucked obviously, but where do you draw the line between that and e.g. a character in a fully animated movie that looks kinda like a famous deceased person as a tribute? Anyway, the controversy over it in Rogue One felt like people just looking for ways to be offended or scared by technology, as despite being a shitty movie and the CG being unconvincing and weird it would have been perfectly ok if done well. It will be interesting to see if they go along with a CG Carrie Fischer in episode 9, as from what I understand they mostly shot 8 before she died and any CG Leia in that one will be minimal.
What's the fundamental difference between a CG Monroe or Chaplin and convincing actors in makeup playing them, which is completely standard and accepted?
only if you are using them in characters and franchises they were in when alive.
unethical to make them do something else. like sell vacuum cleaners.
you are a mouth breathing retard.
But Tarkin is based and it's so cool seeing Peter again.
That's right, Crispin Glover sued Steven Spielberg and won.
on the screen and for an audience not much difference, but legally speaking quite different.
Image rights are a thing, paparazzi are very familiar with them.
Anyway, if I use your image in a tv spot I need to have a contract with you in which you agree to lend me your image under circumstances defined in the contract. We'll negotiate clauses and payment under a legal official frame, we'll register the contract in a licensed Intellectual Property agency of some sort.
We could setup different conditions for different medias or time frames. I could only be interested in your voice. Or your silhouette. Or your mannerism. We could really be very precise in conditions here. And it protects both parties. It's in our best mutual interest to do it.
If I don't sign a contract with you and I go using your image you can sue me for several different things depending on the situation. Mental distress, misuse of private information, etc... The image right becomes a property right capable of protection under the legislation through registration. Registration enables the image right to be protected, licensed and assigned.
When you're putting make up it's just an homage, artistic license so to speak. As long as you don't make a substantial commercial profit with your act it's fine. No contracts no nothing. But if you make a profit, then Chaplin's estate can assign you to court and go for your money for breach of privacy and confidentiality for example.
So that's the difference.
>I mean its highly likley his family just sold his image for a quick buck, not giving a thought to what he would have actually wanted.
As it should be. Who cares what he thinks? He dead.
Hi, this is Greg Lansky, CEO of Blacked, and I'd like to buy the image rights for your great grandmother so we can make a perfect CG recreation of her to be spitroasted by a pack of wild pavement apes.
There's $250k in it for you. I'm sure this is what she would have wanted.
Why? They are dead either way, and Star Wars is basically a 2 hour toy commercial.
They obviously bring back the characters as a last hurrah before killing them off before the actual actors kick it. That's why Han died in the last one, because they were certain Ford was a fucking corpse.
Actually its because Ford has not given a good performance in 15 years and clearly doesnt care anymore. They said they will kill him off and let him off the hook if he just spends 1 hour actually acting.
>His family was fine with it
Nope.
He and his wife never had kids.
He left all his rights and what not to his long time secretary/assistant and she was the one that gave go ahead for his appearance to be used in the film.
Should also be noted, that unlike Alec Guinness, Cushing actual liked Star Wars and his only issued with it, other then his boots, was that he was killed off and couldn't be in the next one.
What? This movie literally takes place like twenty minutes before A New Hope. Why would you cast younger?