Nerdist: It seemed inevitable. Digital technology has been improving. Older actors appear as younger versions of themselves in movies from Ant-Man to The Irishman. In 2016, a CGI version of the late actor Peter Cushing appeared in the Star Wars flick, Rogue One. Dead actors have been resurrected for commercials, to sell everything from vacuums to chocolate. So really, it was only a matter of time before a beloved, long-dead celebrity had their likeness reappropriated for a starring role in a film.
14 comments:
This is sooooo weird. I felt like the blinking white guy reading this. They're just using James Dean because... they thought he was best fit for the role? 65 years after his death? I? Going into this, I thought perhaps this was, like, a sequel and they wanted to reprise his character, which would make sense to me. But this doesn't. Ant-Man, which they used as another example of a movie that used CGI, actually had a purpose in doing this. They needed a young version of one the characters for a flashback scene, and I think that's relevant use of CGI.
This reminds me of the Snickers commercial with The Brady Bunch and the weird chocolate commercial with Audrey Hepburn. Those were cool, but again, those were short commercials who used the CGI as tropes. A whole length feature film with a separate guy to do James Dean's voice and a guy to do his movements and a whole team to create James Dean just because he fit the role?! I'm sure there are living actors out there that can do the trick! This feels like such a waste of time and resources, and it kind of freaks me out that this is something people are capable of doing. I suppose in the grand scheme of things, this is a very harmless use of this technology that I cannot find a reason to be mad about (weirded out, sure, but not mad), but the fact that this technology exists and is becoming more accessible and whatnot...
What will the future of film be? What will the future in general be if you can just... recreate someone doing and saying whatever? This is one of those ideas that'd be cool to think about, but considering that it's becoming a reality, almost scares me more than anything.
This is a really cool article. I think it is a really interesting concept how they use cgi and ar to recreate dead people as living people in film. We touched on this in stagecraft media today about how interesting and specific it is to recreate a dead person as living. If somebody is sitting in the worst seats in the house in the front row seats, then whatever was the intentional design will not be recognized by the people sitting in the sightlines. I think it will be really interesting to see this finalized product. I also find it really interesting in their phrasing of “character” versus “actor” in who they were searching for. It, as the article makes it sound, seems as if they had been searching for someone dead the entire process, when in reality they could have found a live actor for far much less work, but I guess if they really wanted to utilize this technology to recreate a dead person, then the could have fabricated their voice.
I only pray they don’t screw this up. I know that many of the digital reanimations of famous actors, such as the few in Star Wars: Rogue One just turn out looking like someone cast a person out of shiny playdough, and it’s as though they’re too perfect in the skin and eyes and such. However, I also remember seeing videos of DeepFakes on Youtube that look fantastic. For instance, someone transposed Harrison Ford’s face onto the young Han Solo during some scenes in Solo: A Star Wars Story, and it was insanely cool. I think the main issue with this particular project is that many of the films that Dean starred in were older films, so the particular footage that exists of him may be rather grainy, at least with that old and vintage film grain style. Thus, will the clearing of that grain make him look even more artificial? It’s one upon a plethora of issues that could go wrong with this experiment, and while I’m all for innovation, I just wouldn’t go so far as to risk it all on this tech development.
I honest to god don't know how I feel about this development. I am all for technical advancement but not so much in movies. I'm not a huge fan of CGI in large doses because while the technology we currently have available can be very realistic and very good for slight enhancements or special effects that would otherwise be difficult or dangerous to achieve, there is no humanity to it, which has been very meticulously demonstrated by the most recent movie of the Lion King. Overwhelmingly I have heard that the lions in the movie have no soul; the voices were real but the faces and the movements were clinical. If CGI can't make a happy lion, I can't imagine how it could pull off a fully formed, nuanced human being, especially one as acclaimed as James Dean. If it doesn't work out well, the directors will be under incredibly heavy fire.
I’ve haven’t been a fan of these recent cgi recreations of actors in cinema. Sure, I understand the full CGI embodiment of an actor if they had passed away during the filming process (example, Carrie Fisher in the latest Star Wars movie) (though, even then I feel there are moral questions to ask), but to have a single character that is CGI amongst a cast composed of real, living and breathing performers baffles me. There are so many hardworking performers out in the world who spend so much time and effort (and money!) developing their craft and putting themselves out there, why “hire” an actor that has passed on? Perhaps the filmmakers wanted to create buzz or a draw to this movie with this casting choice (by using such a well known individual), but I still question this choice due to the sheer amount of hard working professionals out there. I just can’t believe that after “searching high and low for the perfect character”, that they couldn’t find somebody?
They.....they thought he was...best for the role??....He's dead? He literally....is dead. Listen, the article is right, it was inevitable, but like, why? I'm sure that the CGI will be done well and it'll be fine, but the casting directors are very obviously lying. There's no way they thought a post-mortem James Dean was the best for a role, they knew this gimmick would make lots of money and get a lot of attention. Yes, James Dean was an excellent actor, but why can't we just let him have been a great actor? He doesn't need to be back. There are plenty of incredible actors in the world and I'm sure they could have found one. It's not like this will be much cheaper than paying an actor, but it is very telling regarding the state of computer animation and CGI replacing human actors. The entertainment industry isn't always discussed when we talk about automation in the workforce and it's really interesting to think about the possibility a movie where every actor is CGI. I don't know how I feel about it. On one hand, I don't think we should be completely negative about it. Advances in technology are generally a good thing, but it concerns me. I'm not sure if we should be sacrificing the quality of acting and emotion for technology.
I really do not know how I feel about this one. James Dean died 64 years ago. I am not sure if resurrecting him to be cast in a movie is the right choice to make. I feel like they could have easily cast a younger person to actually play this role in real life rather than creating a virtual stand in for an actor with CGI. To me, it seems like a moral problem. I do really think that the technology is amazing. The fact that we are in a place where we are confident we can fully cast a dead actor in a movie is a really amazing and ground-breaking concept. I guess it has been done before, but I have never actually heard of this before. Personally, I think that we need to let the actors who have passed on rest in peace. We should not try to artificially bring them back. We should respect them, while also appreciating all they have done for the industry.
I do not like this use of dead actors at all. The gesture that their work is unmatchable and their talent is desirable even after death is kind, but at the same time this makes no sense. In cases like Carrie Fisher where she was halfway done with the movie and they needed to digitally create her to finish it. But James Dean has been dead for years and this creates a performance that he never made. It makes no sense because it’s not really him and there is no way it displays his own acting abilities, just how others think he would have acted. Personally, I find this creepy and cynical. Perhaps it is claimed this is being done for James Dean’s talent, but honestly it feels more like a cash grab for people to mush over the newest technology. It’s weird, but that won’t stop them from making the movie and making money. I wonder how it will affect award shows.
No. Please, no. I find so many things wrong with this idea, and very little that is right. I am all for supporting the evolution of these amazing technologies and what what they are doing for the artistry behind CGI and digital creation/editing, but....really? I think the article summed it up best when they commented on the "audition" process: “We searched high and low for the perfect character to portray the role of Rogan, which has some extreme complex character arcs, and after months of research, we decided on James Dean,” Ernst told THR. Interesting that he says they searched for “the perfect character” to portray Rogan, not “the perfect actor.” This is the thing: in choosing to hold on to the past and cast a deceased actor in this role, you are holding back the entire industry and the potential for new talent to emerge and increase the talent pool. How the heck are young actors supposed to become known and visible in Hollywood if they are competing with people who are NO LONGER LIVING? I just don't understand why we are so terrified of letting go of the past that we are willing to stifle the opportunities of future actors.
Using technology to insert an actor into a film is not exactly a new concept, but I find it strange that the creative team decided that James Dean, a man who has been dead for over 60 years, would be the best man to fit the role. Along with the author of this article, I also find it funny how filmmakers sought to find the perfect "character" as opposed to the perfect actor as though the film was always meant to include a CGI recreating of some deceased actor. I also wonder why the filmmakers would go through so much trouble perfectly recreating James Dean's body and face as well as get a voice actor for dialogue when they could just a real person to act as the role of Rogan in the new film. Overall, I think technology is absolutely fascinating, but it is a bit creepy to recreate a man who has been dead for decades.
I’m not entirely sure that I understand the point here. The filmmakers obviously just wanted to use James Dean’s likeness for this movie, but there are plenty of actors - LIVING actors - who look similar enough to him. For goodness’ sake, Chris Evans could play the character if they just wanted someone to look roughly like James Dean. Especially when there is someone else’s voice speaking from James Dean’s mouth and someone else dictating the movements of “James Dean’s” character, there really just doesn’t seem to be a point to having only Dean’s looks up on the screen. I’d understand more if the movie was a sort of biopic about James Dean’s life or if there was some “James Dean” character, but there’s really no reason to just use his face. James Dean isn’t even all that recognisable to younger, newer generations; yes, he was a hot actor in his time, but there are plenty of newer, more contemporarily recognisable actors in the world today.
Something like this is what he have been dreading since films began incorporating digitally de-aged actors recently. While James Dean's death was untimely and tragic, the reasoning behind this choice is absolutely absurd. The filmmakers said that they made this choice because they felt that he best fit the role. This is problematic on a few levels. First, this carries the implication that there is not a living actor capable of playing this part. There is. Second, they would only be using Dean's likeness, which means that the movements of the character and the speaking voice would both be performed by someone who is currently living. Why not have them play the part? This whole situation has gotten a lot of attention, so it also seems likely that the filmmakers are using this as a stunt to attract more attention to the movie. If this is true, I believe that it is in poor taste to do something like that.
I don’t really understand why and how did James Dean get roped into this. I have seen movies where they resurrect actors from the dead, but most of the time is because the actor has passed away during the filming or development of the film. Or it’s a sequel and it would be prohibitive to change the actor, like Fast and the Furious did with Paul Walker, or Carrie Fisher in Star Wars with Princes Leia, Unlike that swift Dumbledore replacement back in the early 2000, we had the technology to bring them back and we did. I just wonder how does this work regarding to intellectual property, and how did the company acquire the rights to James Dean’s image. Why not cast another actor? Why not cast and train an actor to be like James Dean? Like the article mentions, it feels like they are doing this move just to play with CGI, and James Dean was always the image they wanted to use.
Like everyone else is saying, I'm not sure exactly how to feel about this. When I first read this article, I thought it was kind of cool to think about James Dean's career not actually being over thanks to CGI. I've seen other instances where it was really cool, such as Michael Jackson's performance at the Billboard Music Awards in 2014. They had his image perform a song from his posthumous album, and live dancers danced onstage with him. That idea made sense considering that a singer was performing songs he wrote and recorded, even though they weren't released until after his death. This situation with James Dean is a little random considering the plot of the film has nothing to do with his career or personality. It's as if the writers used James Dean as an inspiration for this character, and then proceeded to use James Dean's image for this character. Dean has such a strong reputation, so I can understand what they want to bring to the film by using him as the star. However, if they don't do this flawlessly, I think it will be a little tacky. Also, since the plot of the film has nothing to do with James Dean, I think that using his image will be a distraction to the audience. If they wanted to play with CGI and his image, why not make a film that relates to him?
Post a Comment