Resurrecting the dead and old?

I was reading this What is your opinion of using digitally recreated dead people and old actors for entertainment purposes? And in general, it's effectiveness?

I saw Tron: Legacy and it was distracting as hell. He looked like a weird rubber doll. Haven't seen Rogue One yet, but i've seen a aot of people complain about a CGI Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher.

Having said that, I remember watching this advert a but couldn't tell, thought it was manipulated footage.

https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/oct/08/how-we-made-audrey-hepburn-galaxy-ad

I don't give a shit to be honest.

Hate it, because it's not original. Someone needs to figure how all the graves in Jerusalem opened up, and people walked around when Jesus died. Practical effects, people!!!!

It looks pretty cool and everything but.. it just seems kind of eery. Technology has evolved to the point where we've been able to recreate the dead through CGI and I think its pretty cool while at the same time a very dark turn.

Are we becoming too advanced for our own good? Call me traditional but it just doesn't sit well with me.

Did the CGI's actor who died, did his family get paid for the movie? How does that work?

Disturbing to me, because it's like you're making a dead guy say something that he can't agree to.

If we're talking about a case of de-ageifying an actor for a movie (like Tony Stark in that latest Captain America movie), then fine. The dude's alive, he can agree or not. Even if the rights to his image are out of his control, he's still ALIVE, so he can say that it's bullshit what people are doing to his image. I'm fine with that.

What creeps me out is stuff like seeing a long-dead Fred Astaire's ages-ago performance being used to sell available-now Hoover vacuum cleaners. That's like saying "Fred Astaire loves these Hoover vacuum cleaners" when he very well may have hated the f***ing things. He's being used to sell a product and he doesn't even have the option of saying no.

Basically...Okay if the dude is still alive, because then you can get his consent. Tacky as hell if the guy is dead, because then you're basically sort of applying them to a statement/product/message that they don't have the ability to disassociate themselves from.

EDIT: Anyway, I Googled it and it was apparently Dirt Devil and not Hoover. But otherwise, my point still stands.

If they got paid, then I bet is it a lot less than the actor themselves would have got.

It brings The Sopranos down a solid notch, that's for sure. Can't take the show seriously when it has that one scene in it.

It's very good in Genisys but still something off about it. Even though the movie isn't good, I think it's one of the rare occasions where justified. At the end of Episode III, they had a Grand Moff Tarkin, a guy in make up and no one complained.

Odd as well, Mon Mothma was just a different actress, but I'm guessing she had more scenes.

I tend to agree with Geezer. To exploit someone's person after they've passed on is disrespectful, dismissive, and (not to go off the deep end) a bit of an affront to their integrity.

I know if I passed on, I wouldn't want me being used in any manner in any form of media whatsoever.

Thought this thread had something to do with actually trying to contact the dead.

It's possible. It's all energy. Problem is it can get confused. And we're not exactly in a place of sorting it out. I encourage it, it's a terribly wonderful experience, but know when to draw the line. Don't keep calling after you get an answer.

Don't care.

Thought it was cool how CGI brought back Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime, and buffer for the last Terminator movie. There has been hologram performances by Eazy-E and 2Pac. With AI they're whole personality can be programmed to a bot.

Tech is scary this is something we are going to have to ease into. I'm not ready for a Michael Jackson bot running around Hollywood.

I don't think we can reanimate the dead but a robot would be so damn convincing that it is the dead entertainer.

Remember souls aren't real (so cynical). If we researched souls we could get a better understanding but it's labeled religious nonsense not worth the study.

Even replicating the DNA would make a twin copy but not bring back the original conscious mind. A clone wouldn't remember anything of the original's life.

Probably the best part of the movie tbh, even if he doesn't look quite 100% it's still fascinating seeing it recreated.

Emilia Clarke was probably the least human thing. :/

Most of the electrical current in your head is picked up by other neurons, and that which radiates away follows the same square inverse law as all other electromagnetic radiation.

Saying someones energy persists after death is like saying that device should work because there was a battery in it yesterday.

It's pretty messed up to digitally "resurrect" a dead person (actor or other) and get them to say whatever you want them to say.

If the family members approve and get compensated who am i to complain? It is their ancestor and they can make the decision.

I thinks it's interesting but weird and as others have stated it can become somewhat of an ethical dilemma given that it lacks their consent to playing certain roles.

I wouldn't want anyone making my decisions for me if I was dead and I had no consent to it. Also these families are offered millions of dollars, who would say no? Its not like the dead can speak.

I would think the family would have to make that decision for themselves.

Nothing can be done about it right now but maybe in the future celebs will put in their will a provision making it impossible to use their likeness.

For right now all you can do is treat their likeness like you would any other asset.

Owned by the family and theirs to do with as they wish.

Thats true, it just seems off for a family to decide the fate of an individual who has no say, and for millions of dollars.

I watched the Leonard Nimoy documentary on netflix last night and his family is safe to do anything they want at least.

Nimoy himself said he would show up for absolutely anything that paid and never once turned down a gig if he could possibly do it.

That's the reason things like this exist.

I think these people care about their families and for the most part would not mind most uses of their likenesses.

@uninspiredcup: I went to Rogue One with a group of 3 other people and I was the only one in the group that realized it was CGI... they all thought it was "good makeup". I think if done extremely (like in Rogue One) it is very acceptable. I really feel like people are complaining just to complain. It was a million times better than the CGI Arnold in Terminator Salvation who was obviously CGI.

Anyways in terms of this controversy.... if the family or actor still alive agrees to have a digital representation of them then I see no harm.

Anyone else notice in that article Audrey Hepburn is trade marked? Is that seriously a thing? Trade marking the names of dead celebrities?

The tech isn't there yet, it just looks creepy. Other than that, I don't really have a problem with it.

I think it was justified in Gladiator with Oliver Reed's tragic death during filming. But aside from that I think it's not cool to have people who have died "CGI'd" in an ad just to sell a product. The person is dead and they have no say at all. Just use an actor that is alive.

@uninspiredcup: she's so perfect

Again, this isn't the actor consenting to be in the film. Who knows what his relationship with his family was like and why should they have a say in his brand + get paid for it? Just seems completely soulless to me.

But then again just my opinion.

That's a different scenario for 2 reasons:

1) Once the movie is that far along, shutting the thing down because an actor died would screw over way too many people.

2) The actor assigned onto THAT PROJECT. He presumably read the script, was okay with the movie and how his character would be handled. This may seem a bit wishy-washy, but he signed on for that project and gave his approval, and CGI-ing him into the movie in order to complete it is just allowing the actor to finish what he consented to do.

Back to the vacuum cleaner ad, that's a COMPLETELY different scenario. Fred Astaire was dead LONG before the ad was even thought up. So it doesn't cost Dirt Devil ANYTHING to have just come up with a different ad. Secondly, Fred Astaire never agreed to shill for Dirt Devil, so it's not as if if using his likeness in an ad is an example of him fulfilling an obligation that he already agreed to.

But yeah...same thing with Brandon Lee and The Crow. By the time he died, the movie was FAR too along to just scrap it. That'd potentially lose millions of dollars and put people out of work. Brandon Lee already gave his consent to THAT PROJECT, and the project had already gotten so far along that it realistically couldn't just be thrown away and started over from scratch. In that case, finish the damn movie. What would be tacky would be to then do a sequel and use either CGI or stock footage to include Brandon Lee as a character in THAT movie. By that point, production didn't start until well after the original actor's death, so there's no reason not to just do a recast.

Their likeness should get paid imo.

Have your image licensed.