Is it Right to Digitally Place a Dead Actor in a Modern Movie? (1 Viewer)

[Ernest Rister]

My grandfather didn't say if he wanted to be dug up and used for fertilizer or not. Do actors now need lawyers to protect their dignity after death from their selfish greedy heirs or from gee-whiz filmmakers more comfortable with pixels than people?

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Why would you assume he wanted his craft to die? I'd think his heirs would be a better judge of that.

 

[Brian Sheffield]

It was such a blink and miss it affair in Sky Captain that I don't understand the film makers rationale. It wasn't neccessarily disrespectful, but definitely pointless.

Why not just hire a living actor for the small role?

 

[Nick Senger]

I didn't have a problem with Olivier in the movie. It was a bit part that looked like a tribute to me--a tribute that fit in very well with the overall feel that the movie was attempting to create. It didn't feel any different than seeing a clip of a movie in another movie,

It's a lot smaller issue to me than say, music artists using riffs from older songs in rap or hip-hop songs. Or than networks like ESPN digitally placing ads behind the batter's box during "live" baseball games. Or networks digitally placing ads on New York City skyscrapers during a "live" telecast of New Year's Eve. The latter two examples are a much more insidious use of digital technology because they claim to be live.

I guess the actor issue would bother me more if/when studios begin to use composites of famous actors to create digital "actors" to "star" in movies without the audience being able to tell the difference between them and an actual actor.

I'm not talking Gollum in LOTR, because there you have a unique creature co-created by computer programmers and an actor. I'm talking about a digital "human" who would be a composite of say Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman and Meg Ryan and who would star in many movies.

The use of Olivier wasn't like that at all. At least it didn't feel that way to me. Not at all like the Astaire/Hoover monstrosity.

Great question, though, and one that will only get more important as digital technology improves.

 

[Andrew Priest]

Thinking about it I wonder... What's the inherint difference between putting a modern actor into an old scene, like in Forest Gump, and putting an old actor into a new scene? Once you insert Gump into a piece of footage with John F. Kennady, it changes that bit of footage into a whole new scene with the original people turned into actors playing themselves. How is that really any different? Because they aren't actors?

For that matter, what about recreating historical figures. Was it wrong for Disney to create the robotic likenesses of American historical figures? Even thought they are perhaps not perfect, they are an attemt at replicating those people, and having those replicas act out the part of the original.


Nice choice of examples. You do realize that he is going to end up fertilizer sooner or later no matter what you do? Besides, are you saying the likeness of a person is the same thing as their physical body? Interesting.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I don't see why this isn't like countless other examples of dead people's work continuing on in film. I mean, it's little different from showing excerpts of old films in the background, having dead people on memorabelia, or even Stephen Spielberg picking up for Kubrick after his death (or whatever variation of the story you subscribe to). A persons work doesn't die when they die, just as their profits don't stop and they're appearance in deleted scenes aren't suppressed.

Again, as long as it isn't disrespectful and is done with the approval of their estate, I'd say it isn't any different than releasing an Olivier action figure with Kung Fu Zeus action. (ok, that might be going a bit far )

 

[Glenn Overholt]

No, I can't see giving an ok to this. What if they did something like that and it turned out so good that it was better than anything that actor had done while he was alive? His reputation would change - after he had finished acting - and living.

Like can you see Obi-Wan giving a little kid some advice in a movie? Wouldn't even that be a little weird?

...and on the lighter side, since they are dead doesn't their membership in the SAG sort of get cancelled? Wouldn't that be illegal?

Glenn

 

[Ernest Rister]

F"or that matter, what about recreating historical figures. Was it wrong for Disney to create the robotic likenesses of American historical figures?"

Is it wrong for an actor to play Caesar or Marc Anthony? That's way off the subject. An actor AGREES to appear in the roles he does -- after death, he has no CHOICE. Would Laawrence Olivier have wanted to appear in Sky Captain? MAYBE. We don't know. Why? He's dead.

I say, unless an actor expressly permits the use of his work to be "sampled" in future films, it is monstrous and abhorrent on the same level as grave-robbing to use an actors work in a modern film without his permission.

"You do realize that [your grandfather] is going to end up fertilizer sooner or later no matter what you do?"

As will you, Andrew.

"Besides, are you saying the likeness of a person is the same thing as their physical body? Interesting."

I'm saying actors on the level of Olivier CHOSE what roles they played. Fred Astaire dancing with a hoover, John Wayne selling beer -- this is grave robbing. Anyone who supports these monstrosities should be ashamed.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

How is it different? Would Ceasar have objected to the way Shakespeare portrayed him? Maybe.

For that matter, many dead musicians work turns up in movies as part of the soundtrack or score. Or new works are based on it. How is this any different? Will you post another thread next time Bach is worked into a score?

 

[Andrew Priest]

And they choose the path they took, and by doing so lived lives far superior to the vast bulk of humanity achieving fame that at one time belonged only to those who did something significant or had real power. Blame the weird desire to capture the image, or the rise of the heroic elements in our society. Either way, right or wrong, such exploitation of a star's image in inevitable – as it is with the product of any artist of fame.

I honestly couldn’t care less one way or the other. John Wayne sold an image - a false image - and now that image is being used to sell beer? It's not the actor but just that aforementioned false image that's being exploited. The real John Wayne couldn't sell beer. And the image, being what it is, hardly seems worthy of defending.

 

[ChrisMatson]

This topic reminds me of the Bruce Lee project that seems to be in limbo:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=182367

Anyone know of an update?

 

[Bill Williams]

Remember the 90's Diet Coke ad Elton John did? It had at least several deceased performers, including Humphrey Bogart and Louis Armstrong, included in the nightclub scene to hawk Diet Coke. That one was about as bad as the Astaire Hoover ad, IMHO.

 

[Kenneth]

Although the usages might not always be in good taste I don't see anything legally wrong with using digital images that the estates are approving. I would think this won't be a big issue until the copyright expired and an image became public domain. Once that happened then anyone could use the image in whatever fashion they felt appropriate. Even if someone were to include a clause in their will this could still happen once the copyright on their image expired. Personnally I don't think this would be an issue but you never know.

Kenneth

 

[Andre Bijelic]

I don't think this kind of image "sampling" will ever truly take off. After all, using and manipulating the likeness of a Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly or Cary Grant - even if it is perfectly done - cannot be compared to a real performance. A computer is incapable of capturing the spirit and essence of a performer.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The comparison between Oliver in "Sky Captain" and Astaire in the Hoover commercials isn't very fair.

Using an actor to actually "play" a part of a character in a film is a lot different from having him appear in a commercial.


I personally feel that using an actor or actress in a commercial is really tacky. However, using one in a film for a real part isn't. If the makers of "Sky Captain" had to use an actor who has been dead for 15 years due to other choices being mediocre... that says a lot about Sir Lawrence Oliver's lasting impact via his acting.

 

[Steve Felix]

Practically true, but the real barrier that will stop completely digital actors from proliferating is the cost compared to hiring a real one who can do a better job. With enough time and money any image can be fashioned in a computer, including a great performance. Pixar characters have been pretty affecting since 1995 and they're only getting better. A realistic human character would just take exponentially greater time to animate.

A greater threat than creating a performance from scratch is the possiblity of hiring an actor to impersonate someone, and then giving him or her a digital makeover to look exactly like that someone(say, a dead actor). That process would be much cheaper and faster and wouldn't have the disadvantage of a lackluster performance. Robert Zemeckis is always in the thick of this type of controversy so naturally he's making strides in the digital wrapping of people with The Polar Express.

Imagine the temptation of a biopic producer to create a perfect reproduction of someone without having to search for an actor who looks just right. The creation would be indistinguishable from the real person and could color perceptions of that person, which I guess is the fear. The implications of perfect impersonation are far greater than their potential use in movies, though.

I don't think it's right to make a blanket statement about whether the technology is ethical. The effect does no damage to Olivier, for instance, even though the SC team's claim that they couldn't find someone as commanding as him is totally silly given the nature of the "part." There could be other harmless uses. It has to be decided on a case by case basis whether something is offensive.

 

[Andrew Priest]

In the end I think the act of replicating the likeness of dead actors will prove to be a gimmick. After all, is not the 'Fred Astaire dancing with a Hoover' bit really nothing more than a cheap gimmick. You couldn't copy the likeness of a living actor, and people will be fully aware that the likeness of a dead actor is fake. I'm sure that eventually someone will use the technology to create a movie full of dead actors. But once again it would be a gimmick.

Thinking about it I couldn't help but thing of the MTV parody of the council scene in Fellowship of the Ring. Though the actors are not dead, it was still a case of manipulating a scene in order to radically alter the nature of the performances in question. Sure was funny though. I almost died laughing. And then there's something like Kung Pow! Can we be 100% sure every single actor in the movie was alive when it was bought and the movie so radically altered?

Seems to me it just gets muddier - this issue - the more you stir it up.

 

[Eddy-C]

Isn't that the plot of the Al Pacino movie, Simone?

 

[Chris]

Here for a second, I thought this thread would be about Brandon Lee (The Crow) ..

Anyway, having seen the film, I didn't think the use was distasteful, it was very minor and I thought a nice aside to the man's career.

 

[Nick Senger]

I haven't seen it, but I remember hearing about a movie that was supposed to be about a "virtual" actor. The movie's creators even tried to be mysterious to the public about whether the part in the movie was played by a real woman or was CGI. Is that the movie?