Variety: When “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” recently opened, audiences did not see a reanimated Chadwick Boseman. Instead, the title character’s sister, played by Letitia Wright, took over as the superhero. The technology existed for a digitized Boseman to reprise his celebrated 2018 star turn — but allowing a new, living actor to fill the role was the right call, not just for the franchise, but for the medium of film.
6 comments:
I actually really agree with this article. I think that just because the technology exists we should use it. I think Black Panther did a really good move by just honoring the actor who played such an iconic role and letting the actor rest and his legacy remain in tact. I think it is okay to let actor's have their legacy remain the way it was when they died and not try to "keep them alive" in order for a studio to make money on the franchise. It is starting to feel like the business wants to make money off of all of these actor's deaths instead of recasting they are getting essentially publicity from somebody's death and then the AI movie afterwards. I think if you want to do a brief honor of course you should but using what the person accomplished similar to what Black Panther did with Chadwick Boseman.
It is very cool that the tech is such that we are able to do these sorts of things. But I am glad that, from an artistic standpoint, we understand the importance of using it sparingly. So much is lost when you don't have an actual actor to communicate direction to or speak with. I mean sure, someone is probably operating the rig that the overlay for an actor is being draped upon, but is it really the same? At what point are we creating films in the live action world or making something more akin to blue's clues, with a single live actor on stage surrounded by the reanimated corpses of Hollywood past? We shouldn't necessarily entirely shun this technology because it allows us to maybe see characters played by facsimiles of their actors in order to give the people watching the closure that we previously would not have been able to achieve.
This article makes some really good points and I absolutely agree with it. Black Panther was an excellent movie and this sequel was also excellent. I really appreciate that they took the time to rewrite the story to elevate another character. Part of the thing that isn’t usually very exciting about superhero movies to me is that it’s about the same superhero - which can only be interesting for so long. It’s also a good point that the use of dead actors means that they are taking away jobs from potential living actors. The technology is cool, but so what? I also like the point about the homogenization of Hollywood and that the use of dead actors could undo some of the diversification that has been fought for. The article didn’t mention the other level of weirdness that could come from creating actors that don’t really exist. Using AI to create fake people would also limit the potential for creativity.
In my opinion, we should not be using AI software to bring back old actors, maybe it’s different if it’s for a very small cameo with no lines but still. I think it is important to bring up that you are taking away that person’s control even if they are dead. I think back to the legacy that they might want to leave and it is not fair to choose that for somebody. As talked about in the article, there are many other options for shows to continue on without an actor while still honoring them. One that comes to mind for me is in the reboot of Gilmore Girls. The actor who played Richard, Edward Herrmann unfortunately passed away before they brought the show back. They were still able to reference him and actually make getting over his death and the grief that came with it a big part of the plot for a couple of the characters.
I find the reanimating of deceased actors weird to begin with, though this is an interesting take and not one I have actually had to think about. I hadn’t thought about how it would affect aspiring actors from breaking into to industry, but not only that, it would affect other jobs. To think that companies could reanimate actors without consideration for the work they did while alive is disheartening, especially since they wouldn’t have deal with securing the rights from the deceased actor’s family or estate. This article was helpful in showing the reader ways that this reanimation could e prevented, such as having audiences boycott productions that use reanimation, or looking into rewriting legacy laws. It also brought up how studios are already starting to adjust viewers to using reanimated actors, though right now it’s only for certain situations. However, it’s possible that studios will start using reanimated actors more and for outside these certain situations.
I don’t know that’s really tricky. This is kind of like the whole Frankenstein situation of like being responsible for what you bring into this world and playing God when you probably shouldn’t. It’s not inherently wrong to show someone in TV/movie who’s dead, otherwise reruns of old tv shows would never air again right? But when people start to do it in poor taste or for moments of nostalgia, bringing up strong emotion and a visceral reaction, and audiences can recognize when movies do that. It’s not cute and no one likes it. But how do you deal with the death of an actor leading to, the death of a character. It’s like glee! Remember when Finn died and the most tasteful thing Ryan Murphy did that entire show was just put up a picture of Finn Hudson in Season 1 in his football uniform. But if they reanimated Cory Monteith and brought him back to life to say his last words or continue on the show, we’d all be a little weirded out right?
Post a Comment