MIT Technology Review: From Carrie Fisher in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story to Paul Walker in the Fast & Furious movies, dead and magically “de-aged” actors are appearing more frequently on movie screens. Sometimes they even appear on stage: next year, an Amy Winehouse hologram will be going on tour to raise money for a charity established in the late singer’s memory. Some actors and movie studios are buckling down and preparing for an inevitable future when using scanning technology to preserve 3-D digital replicas of performers is routine.
17 comments:
I take some issue with the digital preservation of famous stars, or any people for that matter. When someone dies, their image, art, and voice are not free to be exploited by anyone who wishes to do so. It is an overstep of consent and privacy to manipulate these things about a person, especially when said person is deceased and not there to permit it. It is also plain disrespectful; we must let those who have passed rest peacefully, not force upon them a new life controlled by others as an animation. Consumers may be drawn to seeing holographs of artists like Michael Jackson on stage, or Carrie Fisher on the screen, and it may make bank for the sponsoring companies, but to me it seems like an almost immoral act. Someone’s entire person can be controlled by people who wish to exploit it for financial gain. This technology, while innovative in its function, is problematic in its possible uses.
I can see where this technology can be very helpful when tragedies do happen or when you want to create a life-like version of a digital human, but honestly, I think this is just a little too creepy when this technology is used to preserve actors so that they can be in movies even once they have passed on. Isn't that just a little too much? Creepy? Sure we have some great actors living among us now and have had some great actors who have already passed, but I'm sure there will be more great actors to still be discovered and if we have the options to go back to who we have always used, nonetheless a digital version of them, that takes away opportunities. I think using the technology in this way can also lead to a separation between the work and the human connection. I'm sure even on screen the lack there of will be prevalent. Overall, I'm just not ready for this I guess, but I think the technology does have potential to be very useful in non-creepy ways.
Uh, so I find this kind of weird. The allure of being able to preserve someone and their art is highly tempting, technology is becoming more versatile and efficient, and as a race we often suffer with this idea of letting people go. Technology is used as a tool to accomplish what is not humanly possible on our own. For movie makers, the idea of still being able to use an actors talent even when they're gone is a great asset to the stories they are trying to tell. Each of these artists have left behind significant legacies, and that's why we rely on technology to help preserve this. I'm not trying to bash on this technology. It's incredibly thorough, and proves that it has multiple uses, however I think it just helps defeat the purpose of being human. Sorry to get all depressing, but once you're gone, you're gone. It's important to remember when said artist was performing, and to showcase over time they increased their talent in said craft. When you continue to use the actor even when they are no longer alive, you lose that specific actors "spark." Sure you can recreate as much as you can, but the heart and work that that actor possessed (and what made them the greats) you can't recreate that with any amount of technology. As a society we need to move on, and think back on what these artists have provided us with, and look forward to see what new talents can bring to the table.
I found this article to be pretty creepy; there is something so off-putting about using people who are already dead to increase revenue for a production. Even though the nostalgia of it may make people more likely to like it, I can’t imagine that everyone will enjoy seeing dead actors resurrected. As far as I can tell from the article, producers will be more likely to use this technology because they think it will bring in more money. I take issue with this because, not only does it suggest that these producers think that they can defy the natural course of life and death, but it also suggests that they have no concern for morality and that their only motivation is money. While I do think that the technology being used is incredibly impressive and it could be useful if, for some reason, an actor does not have time to be physically present for a scene, but I do not think it should be used to bring people back from the dead.
Initially I was creeped out by the idea of scanning a person so that you can bring them back for a role in a movie, or finish everything with a nice bow. First off it speaks to these gigantic movies that require so many other movies to know what’s happening, and it’s a little disappointing we don’t have new stories to tell with new actors who are just as talented as (the beloved and amazing) Carrie Fisher or whoever we’re CGI’ing in these days. Also…let people be dead? That’d…be cool. However at the end of the article Beau Janzen pointed out how CGI has already been used by replacing body parts, changing faces from stunt doubles to actors, and so forth. And the realization of that made using CGI less “ew gross why, please stop” and more “oh yeah, that makes sense” in my brain. It poses an interesting copyright question, however. Who owns that digital recreation? When does the copyright on your face end? When will Carrie Fisher’s face be in public domain for anyone to put in their homemade movie?
Like the people above, I find some parts of this article creepy. It just doesn’t sit right that dead people can be used by someone else’s will. But also, the CGI effect is still not quite perfect that we can detect the unexplainable and ever so subtle awkwardness. And that small awkwardness always creeps me out. And I think it’s based on natural human reaction, and there is even a name for the reaction. It is the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis. The hypothesis states that when humans face an entity that is almost but not quite human, we feel unease and discomfort. Therefore, making something too human-like can yield a rather counterproductive result. That’s why we feel alerted and scared by robots that look too human but not quite. I don’t mean to say that the hypothesis is the only reason why we feel creeped out by the new technology. It surely involves many other things such as keeping the respect for the dead.
I have mixed feelings about preserving actors through digital media. While the technology is without a doubt incredible and ground breaking, I dislike the idea of digitally recreating someone post death. I feel as though this has opened the door to an ethics problem in which we have to question what this digital copy will be used for. From what the article suggests, this technology is for recreating pieces and having a safety in case of death. This begs the question of what is allowed to be reproduced. Can one digitally recreate/ add a sequel of an actor for the sole purpose of making money? There’s a risk that anyone would create a movie with a CGI character and use the data collected to create a fake you. This would go against the rights of the actor, but there’s really no one to stop them.
I feel like I have commented on this topic several times over the course of the semester. Yet my opinion will always stay the same. As we can see, technology is always developing very rapidly, but it can go too far. Using the dead as franchise methods just does not sit right with me. The technology aspect of it is very cool but the moral standing just isn’t right. Not letting their careers end when a celebrity dies is problematic in their remembrance by constantly being reminding the audience that this person has died and limits the opportunity for future generations of performers. The deceased are not there to properly represent themselves, so why profit off of their face and talent with basically no permission at all? After reading past comments, I see everyone pretty much feels the same as I do. It’s off-putting and disturbing to not let someone die in peace and let them be remembered through past achievements.
I get the humorous intent of the article, but the intro left me a little reluctant to read further. They joke, "Just because your star is inconveniently dead doesn’t mean your generation-spanning blockbuster franchise can’t continue to rake in the dough. Get the tech right and you can cash in on superstars and iconic characters forever." That, coupled with he description of the hologram Amy Winehouse makes me a bot uncomfortable. I am all for digital recording and the continuation of an actor or performer if they want it to be--but what if they never consented? Did Amy Winehouse agree to this? Who is deciding for her now? That just leaves me feeling disturbed. I'm all for this if an actor feels like they want to opt in, but the article talks about studios or productions having their leads scanned, and I can't help but wonder how the actual performer feels about it. I would hope that their image is part of their estate, and thus can only be used in ways they would want or their family/estate deems appropriate. There has to be some regulation on this as it is deeply personal--someone's likeness is being used for profit.
Like other commenters, I have reservations about this use of CGI technology. On one hand, it’s amazing how far CGI and other video effects technology has come in such a short period of time. It’s used in so many ways that we as an audience don’t notice; it’s amazing how much of modern movies are shot entirely in front of a green screen and have entire worlds constructed around them, as well as other applications like de-aging someone or adding or removing physical features. However, I feel like using this technology to recreate deceased actors who no longer have any input on “their” own actions seems morally questionable. Additionally, I’m not sure how close we’re ever going to be able to get CGI towards looking exactly like the real thing. We as humans are biologically inclined towards being very good at recognizing faces and small discrepancies in them, leading to the uncanny valley effect whenever something comes very close, but not perfectly, towards looking like a human. Because of this, unless it’s done perfectly, we as an audience will most likely notice and be put off by it. In my opinion cgi shouldn’t be trying to recreate people for the sake of profiting off a sequel- it’s used much more effectively and ethically in live-action when we don’t notice it.
I am a Star Wars fan myself, and I am actually a bit upset when I saw the digital reconstruction faces on the actors. To me personally, the actors are serving for the story, not the other way around. Every time they performed is unique moment that took place only once. Based on how the character and the story they were trying to deliver, they make the moment of their own showcase for all time. This technology seemed a bit flashy and too commercial for me. For all those films used the digital reconstructed figures, I would argue that were unnecessary. It will be a lot better if you can find a new actor who is able to give the story and character a new representation, even if it is risking losing the films old, hardcore fans.
I have very mixed feelings about this article. I, personally, loved seeing Carrie Fischer's face show up after her untimely death, because she has been one of my biggest role models for a long time, and to see her face after her death made it feel like her memory wouldn't die. I liked it at the moment because it felt like a memorial to a legend. However, the idea of scanning every actor's face "just in case" to preserve the money-making abilities of the movies they may be a part of seems a bit dehumanizing. A fake projected Amy Winehouse going on an entire tour seems a bit scary honestly, and a bit too much like we're literally keeping the dead alive. I liked the way they were able to preserve Carrie's memory but beyond that, I don't think I'm a fan. An Amy Winehouse entire tour after her passing just seems wrong, and like the industry is using her name and fame to make money (yes, for a charity, but still) in a way that is very inappropriate. They could easily do a benefit tour with any live singer. We need to let the ones who have passed on actually rest.
I do not think that I have as much of a problem with this as other people do, especially if the actors are involved in digitally preserving themselves, or are able to consent to it beforehand. One thing that this article mentions is “getting scanned at a younger age” so that you can play a younger version of yourself. This article gives the example of Samuel L. Jackson in the upcoming Captain Marvel movie. I think that this is an interesting idea, and does not exactly fall under the same category as reusing footage of a dead actor. I think that that technology is more useful for storytelling, and should be less controversial overall, as it allows someone in a flashback to actually appear younger, keeping a more cohesive narrative, and not asking the audience to make as many mental leaps in order to suspend disbelief.
Post a Comment