47 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

A very interesting topic, haven't pondered this as yet.

Of course, we know Cushing couldn't have any part in the decision himself. And the technique isn't perfect yet. But I also do wonder...

How far would we be prepared to go to make it perfect? When we arrive at a consensus to basically have no problem with reusing the image of a deceased - who had no possible chance to be aware of this back then - what else would we do to make the illusion perfect? Perfect beyond the limits of mere CGI? I know this sounds way out there, but what actually would keep us to shape a whole lifelike roboter after that actor's image? Who could be against it; it's just a thing. Looking like a human but a thing nonetheless. This may still be far in the future, but I would argue the ethical grounds for society's approach to such questions are laid in the here and now.

And if we think there is no problem now...then it probably may become very hard to draw a line, find an absolute limit of taboo, later on.

I don't think I'm a fan. Not that my opinion will count for a lot. But the younger members one day will find that a lot of their opinions they held today shaped the world of tomorrow, for better or worse.

[Orion]

In regards to actors, as I mentioned before, Equity does have this covered - Won't explain it in full here but if you're interested in the details type "Crispin Glover Back to The Future 2" into google and you'll easily find the info. In regards to the ethics of it - I think it's unlikely to ever catch on to the extent posited here, simply because the method does mean you have to hire TWO actors - one who is on set to interact with as well as provide the voice to read the dialogue, and then the full actors pay for the cast member you digitally recreate that you would give to the actors estate - most would see this as a LUDICROUS waste of a budget, especially when every penny counts. Also, and we as Bond fans know this, each actor who plays a role brings their own qualities to it, even when it is the exact same role - Only Sean Connery could be Sean Connery, so whilst the technique worked well enough for cameos like Tarkin and Leia, it wouldn't hold up for an entire film, and you'd loose what many would see as the key component for a long lasting series - an acceptance, and even embracing, of change and allowing the actors unique qualities to keep the character alive. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Acceptance - that´s the problem I guess, even judging from some opinions in this thread.  The joy to see an actor who physically could not be there anymore seems to overwhelm any ethical doubts.  And if this technique becomes perfect I fear that it will be accepted and even welcome by a majority.

 

In the past, the death of actors during the production already led to the use of doubles and transplanting faces via CGI.  Now it´s possible to do that even more seamlessly.  And right now there are talks going on how to handle the Princess Leia character in STAR WARS IX in which reportedly the character was supposed to have important scenes.

 

Might this be a generational thing as well?  Those of us for whom Sean Connery is an actual living human being probably shudder to think of a replacement - CGI or mechanical - that could be animated to play James Bond in a whole movie.  But those who only know him from "old movies" might think differently.

[Dustin]

In regards to actors, as I mentioned before, Equity does have this covered - Won't explain it in full here but if you're interested in the details type "Crispin Glover Back to The Future 2" into google and you'll easily find the info. In regards to the ethics of it - I think it's unlikely to ever catch on to the extent posited here, simply because the method does mean you have to hire TWO actors - one who is on set to interact with as well as provide the voice to read the dialogue, and then the full actors pay for the cast member you digitally recreate that you would give to the actors estate - most would see this as a LUDICROUS waste of a budget, especially when every penny counts. Also, and we as Bond fans know this, each actor who plays a role brings their own qualities to it, even when it is the exact same role - Only Sean Connery could be Sean Connery, so whilst the technique worked well enough for cameos like Tarkin and Leia, it wouldn't hold up for an entire film, and you'd loose what many would see as the key component for a long lasting series - an acceptance, and even embracing, of change and allowing the actors unique qualities to keep the character alive.

Actually this is what I was thinking about. Yes, it's all very expensive now and of course not 'the real thing'. But who decides what is the real thing? Obviously it's us, we do it as we chose to accept this. And if one day we accept a CGI image, a robot or a clone? Then that's our decision as audience, as society. Not a lot will change for it, the world won't stop turning, our society will just adopt another element into its entertainment. Actors will have one more paragraph - or ten - in their contracts and that's it.

[Orion]

It's the plot of Simone (2002)

Was discussed at the time and the expert opinion was, whilst theroetically it would work, in practice not so much. Human behavior (an area I have studied for my MSC dissertation), and the manner the body moves, is too random and variable, as is the sound of a persons voice - Basically human faults would be virtually impossible to fake based on nothing, you could only replicate an already existing one, which brings us back to Equity's ruling - You owe someone money for their likeness as well as all the people who worked animating your character, the longer the character is on screen, the more it will cost to animate and will burn through your budget at which point the producer fitting the bill would say "why the hell am I putting this much money and man hours, that could be used elsewhere in the production, into a single character when I then need to pay some guy for his likeness anyway? Why don't I just hire the guy to play the role?!?" 

 

So basically, If you had an infinite budget , Sure - otherwise, practicality would say no.

[David_M]

I think what's offensive about this whole practice is the assumption that an actor is no more than a face or at most a set of "stock" mannerisms and vocal inflections, and could be replaced by a CGI simulacrum or some schmuck pantomiming in a greenscreen mask with no negative impact on the viewing experience.  

 

Every actor who ever really connected with audiences brought something beyond mere looks to the role, something you can't manufacture or replicate with a computer or body double.  In many cases, you can't even objectively quantify what that something even is: it's just *there*, more or less magically.  Look at the great performances of true stars and you'll generally find them making decisions you didn't expect, adding something you didn't see coming.  They hold our attention because they connect with us, even though they're just flickering images and not even really in the room with us.  That "x-factor," that certain something that elevates a performer beyond just another pretty face (a dime a dozen in showbiz) to something special and unique, can't just be stamped out on an assembly line.  Showbiz has been trying to do that forever, grooming starlets and hunks who never caught on as "the next Clark Gable" or the "the next Liz Taylor." Now they can just try and reanimate the old Gable or Taylor, but that won't work, either. Because we'll always, always know the difference.

 

I think even if they do ever get the technology right (and for my money, they're still not nearly as close as they think they are), the end result will be something too hollow and flat to resonate with audiences.  You can't bottle lightning.  And again, just the idea that actors are commercial properties first and artists last (if at all) is pretty offensive.

 

Also, just from a marketing standpoint, you'll get a lot more mileage out of signing a real-life "hot property" like Craig or Cumberbatch or Hiddleston than you ever would peddling a CGI cartoon of a dead guy.  At this point, one of the few appeals movies have for young people is the "social event" angle.  Young viewers will gladly go see whatever Jennifer Lawrence is doing this week, but with a grasp of cultural history that extends about two weeks into the past, the resurrection of dead actors from yesterday won't be much of a draw.

[Hockey Mask]

It´s called "your own opinion".  And it´s not a fight, just a discussion on a message board.

I wasn't trying to downplay the thread or those posting. I was just saying it seems to be more of an argument between the studios and the estates of the deceased. Not my fight.

[SecretAgentFan]

As a paying customer studios definitely want to keep it is absolutely your fight.

[Hockey Mask]

I don't care if we get recreated characters or not. If an estate has an issue with it then I would have an opinion.

[Dustin]

Stands to reason this is what most people will make of it. Still odd...

[SecretAgentFan]

Is this the "I don´t care, I want"-generation?

[Dustin]

I don't think it's about 'want' so much as about the fact this is a possibility now and of course it's done then. Mid-eighties, when the human genome project was a hot topic among scientists, some intellectuals called for a gen-ethics. Nobody outside the community took much notice - until it became a valuable diagnostic tool. And only last week scientists created - probably not for the first time - chimera: cell clusters mixing human and animal DNA.

Some things just evolve under the radar; they have their own dynamics and their own velocity. Impossible to predict how future generations will look at them. This 'ghosting' phenomenon is still an obscure detail in a much wider context, as some already noted. It could become much more important - or it could just as likely vanish again like the 3D craze.

[trevanian]

I think it is unlikely to just vanish, because there's just too much potential for use of virtual humans in non-cinematic ways (faking newscasts and 'real' events, basically MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE using BRAINSTORM/INCEPTION tech for real world deception or false-flag ops, in pitch-speak.)

 

Traditionally, images in news reports (print and tube) haven't often gotten a lot of scrutiny and pass unnoticed. I remember a two-page photo from GulfWar I (in TIME or NEWSWEEK, I think) that had soldiers in the foreground, desert in the midground and burning oil fields on the horizon, and going by the direction and quality of light, it looked like the image was comprised of at least two elements shot at different times and perhaps different places. I was so troubled (not just that it appeared, but that anybody thought the image would pass muster) that I actually sent a snail-mail over it, not that it got printed or a response. I was flabbergasted that something that looked less credible to me than the old Oswald-with-gun mag cover was okay with everyone. 

 

Whether folks' visual sensibilities have improved in the last quarter-century or not is probably open for debate, but the higher-rez options on the tube and elsewhere certainly speak to the need for a better origination when it comes to fakes, and so I imagine everything from mapping celebs onto stunt bodies to whole-cloth CG replication is going to have a ton of uses in all sorts of applications beyond Hollywood, though they and the gaming industry might actually drive that development. Who knew PhotoShop was going to become what it became?

 

I think some of the most distinctive movie stars, the actors with the most unique mannerisms (I'd definitely group Connery in this category) are going to be the hardest to replicate, because it seems to be a matter of being unusual and also not responding in the usual time-sense (rewrote that three times, still can't quite get the meaning across, I'm trying to denote how an acting response registers on a face.) I mean, if you look at Roger Moore's work, whether you like it or not, there is an almost Boxleitner-like sameness to the responses, so I can imagine a relatively successful CG-Moore happening a lot sooner than a CG-Connery. Then again, while a CG Shatner sounds like a snap, going from a to z without any subtle bridge, that wouldn't represent some of that actor's best work, like season 1 of STAR TREK, when he goes so low and underplays that you practically have to rewind to catch the undercurrents in voice and expression.

 

I think the ghosts in the CG machine are going to be flying around for quite awhile before they can cross the uncanny valley for me (and on a lot of levels, I'm glad of it.)

[Dustin]

I'm still not sure if we're not overestimating the general import of the technique here. Amongst hardcore Bond fans the application most fans would likely think of is perhaps Connery, in all conceivable combinations. But the question is always whether it's a market and whether it's big enough to sail a ship on. I suppose in the future it will some day be possible to cast your own 'dreamcast' for any given film. But not a lot of it will really have much impact on the general audience since the majority will likely not temper much with casting characters. So things like Connery in OHMSS or Marilyn Monroe in Casablanca or Bogart in Metropolis will probably stay a phenomenon on the fringe while the vast majority will keep to whatever they get served by the prefab entertainment industry, with stars that are a hot commodity at the time of production.

I suppose a bigger market would be some application to see yourself starring in a film; and yet a bigger one an option that lets you experience the film from inside. Theoretically possible - with the right amount of processing power and technology - would seem a lot. Bringing back deceased actors will likely not become the biggest/worst/ultimate element of future entertainment. One supposes future generations won't even understand the discussion about it.

[Hockey Mask]

Is this the "I don´t care, I want"-generation?

Sometimes you don't have to have an opinion about everything.

[SecretAgentFan]

You have to and you do - and if you don´t want to have an opinion on something that´s your right.  But then you do have that opinion.

[George Kaplan]

https://www.theguard...hange-hollywood

 

Ever since Winslet's and di Caprio's face supplanting in Titanic,creating twins in Social Network and more face changing for actors' faces over those of the stuntmen, the writing was always on the wall for what has been exemplifed by the above.

 

For me, in the filmworld, this is a topic worthy of abstract discussion.  Is it right?  Should it continue?  Will this subject, in time, be as dated as that of single sex marriage?

 

If Peter Cushing can be brought back to life with strong sounding morality clauses such as, 'We are not doing anything he wouldn't have wanted', then at what point does Connery actually return to the role of Bond? 

 

As if current day actors didn't have enough competition without having also to compete against a resurrection of history.

 

I doubt it'll ever be financially feasible to bring back a primary performer for a role as anything outside of a short term stunt.  You're paying an actor/estate, a second actor to perform the role and be the body double and a team of technicians and artists vs hiring a living actor.  The practical sense will always win out.  Particularly in case like Bond where multiple actors haven't slowed it down. What need do they have to recreate a previous Bond?

 

I imagine that in small doses (say completing a film when an actor has passed) or for minor roles that make sense for a series' continuity (like Cushings) these will always be around.  We've seen new performances from deceased actors as stunts before (use of old footage to create a new performance from Olivier in SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW or Humphrey Bogart in the "You Murderer" episode of TALES FROM THE CRYPT for example) but again I think it will always be something of limited use, not something where the next Marvel film stars Orson Wells, Rudolph Valentino, Bette Davis, Brittany Murphy and Brandon Lee or something.

[Dustin]

Probably. In all likelihood the demand for creating new material with the physical semblance of deceased actors will be very limited. Not only is the audience a fickle one, we are also by nature quite forgetful. Outside certain geek circles names like Monroe, Karloff or Garbo are just actors of past ages. They may be cherished and celebrated by their fans. But nobody actually asks for their return to the big screen. Actors start out small, become famous, stay there for a time. And then they gradually fade into obscurity again, such is life. The vast majority of Star Wars fans will have cheered about Cushing's bit part - but they would have watched the film with or without him. To most younger audiences Peter Cushing is just an actor who died long before they were even born.