Question
Long-dead actors continue to achieve a sort of immortality in their films. A new controversy over dead actors is coming to life based upon new uses of visual effects and computer-generated imagery (CGI). Instead of simply using CGI to create stunning action sequences, gorgeous backdrops, and imaginary monsters, film makers have started to use its technological wonders to bring back actors from the grave. What ethical problems circle around the use of digital reincarnations in film making? The use of CGI to change the look of actors is nothing new. For instance, many films have used such CGI methods to digitally de-age actors with striking results (like those found in the Marvel films), or to create spectacular creatures without much physical reality (such as
"Gollum" in The Lord of the Rings series). What happens when CGI places an actor into a film through the intervention of technology? A recent example of digital reincarnation in the film industry is found in Fast and Furious 7, where Paul Walker had to be digitally recreated due to his untimely death in the middle of the film's production. Walker's brothers had to step in to give a physical form for the visual effect artists to finish off Walker's character in the movie, and the results brought about mixed reviews as some viewers thought it was "odd" that they were seeing a deceased actor on screen that was recreated digitally. However, many argue that this was the best course of action to take in order to complete film production and honor Paul Walker's work and character.
Other recent films have continued to bet on using CGI to help recreate characters on the silver screen. For instance, 2016's Rogue One: A Star War Storyused advanced CGI techniques that hint at the ethical problems that lie ahead for film-makers. Peter Cushing was first featured in 1977's Star Wars: A New Hope as Grand Moff Tarkin. In the Star Wars timeline, the events that take place in Rogue One lead directly into A New Hope, so the story writers behind the recent Rogue One felt inclined to include Grand Moff Tarkin as a key character in the events leading up to the next film. There was one problem, however: Peter Cushing died in 1994. The film producers were faced with an interesting problem and ultimately decided to use CGI to digitally resurrect Cushing from the grave to reprise his role as the Imperial officer. The result of this addition of Grand Moff Tarkin in the final cut of the film sent shockwaves across the Star Wars fandom, with some presenting arguments in defense of adding Cushing's character into the film by claiming that "actors don't own characters" and that the fact that the character looked the same over the course of the fictional timeline enhanced the aesthetic effects of the movies. Others, like Catherine Shoard, were more critical. She condemned the film's risky choice saying, "though Cushing's estate approved his use in Rogue One, I'm not convinced that if I had built up a formidable acting career, l'd then want to turn in a performance I had bupkis to do with." Rich Haridy of New Atlas also expressed some criticism over the use of Peter Cushing in the recent Star Wars film by writing, "there is something inherently unnerving about watching such a perfect simulacrum of someone you know cannot exist."
This use of CGI to bring back dead actors and place them into film raises troubling questions about consent. Assuming that actors should only appear in films that they choose to, how can we be assured that such post-mortem uses are consistent with the actor's wishes? Is gaining permission from the relatives of the deceased enough to use an actor's image or likeness?
Additionally, the possibility is increased that CGI can be used to bring unwilling figures into a film. Many films have employed look-alikes to bring presidents or historical figures into a narrative; the possibility of using CGI to bring in exact versions of actors and celebrities into films does not seem that different from this tactic. This filmic use of CGI actors also extends our worries over "deepfakes" (Al-created fake videos) and falsified videos into the murkier realm of fictional products and narratives. While we like continuity in actors as a way to preserve our illusion of reality in films, what ethical pitfalls await us as we CGI the undead-or the unwilling-into our films or artworks?
1. What is this article about? (brief summary)
Digital Information Dilemmas
The Ethics of Computer-Generated Actors:
Period: 2-20-25
Answer the question in each square... be sure to include examples from the article as evidence to your claim.
What is being digitized? How is the information represented digitally?
What is the goal or purpose of digitizing this thing?
What are the benefits and harms of digitizing this content?
(Is someone benefitting or being harmed in this situation? If so who?)
Is our world better or worse because of digital representation?
Are these impacts intended or unintended? How do you know?
"Gollum" in The Lord of the Rings series). What happens when CGI places an actor into a film through the intervention of technology? A recent example of digital reincarnation in the film industry is found in Fast and Furious 7, where Paul Walker had to be digitally recreated due to his untimely death in the middle of the film's production. Walker's brothers had to step in to give a physical form for the visual effect artists to finish off Walker's character in the movie, and the results brought about mixed reviews as some viewers thought it was "odd" that they were seeing a deceased actor on screen that was recreated digitally. However, many argue that this was the best course of action to take in order to complete film production and honor Paul Walker's work and character.
Other recent films have continued to bet on using CGI to help recreate characters on the silver screen. For instance, 2016's Rogue One: A Star War Storyused advanced CGI techniques that hint at the ethical problems that lie ahead for film-makers. Peter Cushing was first featured in 1977's Star Wars: A New Hope as Grand Moff Tarkin. In the Star Wars timeline, the events that take place in Rogue One lead directly into A New Hope, so the story writers behind the recent Rogue One felt inclined to include Grand Moff Tarkin as a key character in the events leading up to the next film. There was one problem, however: Peter Cushing died in 1994. The film producers were faced with an interesting problem and ultimately decided to use CGI to digitally resurrect Cushing from the grave to reprise his role as the Imperial officer. The result of this addition of Grand Moff Tarkin in the final cut of the film sent shockwaves across the Star Wars fandom, with some presenting arguments in defense of adding Cushing's character into the film by claiming that "actors don't own characters" and that the fact that the character looked the same over the course of the fictional timeline enhanced the aesthetic effects of the movies. Others, like Catherine Shoard, were more critical. She condemned the film's risky choice saying, "though Cushing's estate approved his use in Rogue One, I'm not convinced that if I had built up a formidable acting career, l'd then want to turn in a performance I had bupkis to do with." Rich Haridy of New Atlas also expressed some criticism over the use of Peter Cushing in the recent Star Wars film by writing, "there is something inherently unnerving about watching such a perfect simulacrum of someone you know cannot exist."
This use of CGI to bring back dead actors and place them into film raises troubling questions about consent. Assuming that actors should only appear in films that they choose to, how can we be assured that such post-mortem uses are consistent with the actor's wishes? Is gaining permission from the relatives of the deceased enough to use an actor's image or likeness?
Additionally, the possibility is increased that CGI can be used to bring unwilling figures into a film. Many films have employed look-alikes to bring presidents or historical figures into a narrative; the possibility of using CGI to bring in exact versions of actors and celebrities into films does not seem that different from this tactic. This filmic use of CGI actors also extends our worries over "deepfakes" (Al-created fake videos) and falsified videos into the murkier realm of fictional products and narratives. While we like continuity in actors as a way to preserve our illusion of reality in films, what ethical pitfalls await us as we CGI the undead-or the unwilling-into our films or artworks?
1. What is this article about? (brief summary)
Digital Information Dilemmas
The Ethics of Computer-Generated Actors:
Period: 2-20-25
Answer the question in each square... be sure to include examples from the article as evidence to your claim.
What is being digitized? How is the information represented digitally?
What is the goal or purpose of digitizing this thing?
What are the benefits and harms of digitizing this content?
(Is someone benefitting or being harmed in this situation? If so who?)
Is our world better or worse because of digital representation?
Are these impacts intended or unintended? How do you know?
Answers
GPT-4o mini
### What is this article about? (brief summary)
The article discusses the ethical implications of using computer-generated imagery (CGI) to recreate dead actors in films. It highlights examples such as Paul Walker’s digital resurrection in "Fast and Furious 7" and Peter Cushing’s revival in "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story." The article raises concerns about consent, the wishes of deceased actors versus the rights of their estates, and the broader implications of using CGI actors, including issues related to deepfakes.
### What is being digitized? How is the information represented digitally?
The actors' likenesses and performances are being digitized. Their appearances, facial expressions, and body movements are represented digitally through CGI technology, allowing filmmakers to create realistic simulations of these actors on screen. For example, Paul Walker’s character was completed using CGI based on his previous performances, as well as the physical presence of his brothers.
### What is the goal or purpose of digitizing this thing?
The primary goal of digitizing deceased actors is to allow filmmakers to include them in new works, thereby continuing their influence and honoring their earlier contributions to cinema. This practice also aims to maintain continuity in storytelling, as seen with Peter Cushing’s character being important to the narrative of "Rogue One," which leads into "A New Hope."
### What are the benefits and harms of digitizing this content?
**Benefits:**
- **Preservation of Legacy:** Digitizing allows deceased actors to continue inspiring audiences and contributes to the legacy of their work. For instance, Paul Walker’s digital appearance was seen by some as a way to honor his legacy.
- **Creative Continuity:** It can provide narrative and aesthetic consistency in film series, as highlighted by Peter Cushing’s seamless integration into the Star Wars storyline.
**Harms:**
- **Ethical Concerns Over Consent:** The use of an actor's image posthumously raises questions about whether it's right to use their likeness without their explicit consent. Critics argue this could lead to exploitation of the actor's image, as represented by the concerns voiced by Catherine Shoard and Rich Haridy.
- **Impact on Industry Standards:** It could set a precedent for using the likeness of any deceased individual without their or their family's consent, opening the door for potential misuse in other contexts, such as deepfakes.
### Is someone benefitting or being harmed in this situation? If so who?
Actors' estates or production companies may benefit financially or through increased recognition by using CGI representations of deceased actors. On the other hand, the deceased actors may be harmed as their images are used in ways they never consented to, which raises ethical dilemmas about their post-mortem representation and how they would have wished to be remembered.
### Is our world better or worse because of digital representation?
The world could be seen as both better and worse due to digital representation.
**Better:** It allows for the continuation of an actor's legacy, keeps audiences engaged with beloved characters, and pushes the boundaries of creative storytelling.
**Worse:** It introduces ethical concerns about consent, the potential for manipulation through deepfake technology, and serves as a reminder that technology can sometimes replace genuine human expression.
### Are these impacts intended or unintended? How do you know?
The benefits of nostalgia and creative continuity seem to be intended impacts, as filmmakers choose to use CGI to enhance storytelling. However, the ethical dilemmas and potential for exploitation appear to be unintended consequences of this technology, as filmmakers may not fully consider or understand the implications of resurrecting an actor digitally without their consent. The controversy surrounding public reaction to these representations indicates that these ethical considerations are becoming more prominent in discussions about digital technology in film.
The article discusses the ethical implications of using computer-generated imagery (CGI) to recreate dead actors in films. It highlights examples such as Paul Walker’s digital resurrection in "Fast and Furious 7" and Peter Cushing’s revival in "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story." The article raises concerns about consent, the wishes of deceased actors versus the rights of their estates, and the broader implications of using CGI actors, including issues related to deepfakes.
### What is being digitized? How is the information represented digitally?
The actors' likenesses and performances are being digitized. Their appearances, facial expressions, and body movements are represented digitally through CGI technology, allowing filmmakers to create realistic simulations of these actors on screen. For example, Paul Walker’s character was completed using CGI based on his previous performances, as well as the physical presence of his brothers.
### What is the goal or purpose of digitizing this thing?
The primary goal of digitizing deceased actors is to allow filmmakers to include them in new works, thereby continuing their influence and honoring their earlier contributions to cinema. This practice also aims to maintain continuity in storytelling, as seen with Peter Cushing’s character being important to the narrative of "Rogue One," which leads into "A New Hope."
### What are the benefits and harms of digitizing this content?
**Benefits:**
- **Preservation of Legacy:** Digitizing allows deceased actors to continue inspiring audiences and contributes to the legacy of their work. For instance, Paul Walker’s digital appearance was seen by some as a way to honor his legacy.
- **Creative Continuity:** It can provide narrative and aesthetic consistency in film series, as highlighted by Peter Cushing’s seamless integration into the Star Wars storyline.
**Harms:**
- **Ethical Concerns Over Consent:** The use of an actor's image posthumously raises questions about whether it's right to use their likeness without their explicit consent. Critics argue this could lead to exploitation of the actor's image, as represented by the concerns voiced by Catherine Shoard and Rich Haridy.
- **Impact on Industry Standards:** It could set a precedent for using the likeness of any deceased individual without their or their family's consent, opening the door for potential misuse in other contexts, such as deepfakes.
### Is someone benefitting or being harmed in this situation? If so who?
Actors' estates or production companies may benefit financially or through increased recognition by using CGI representations of deceased actors. On the other hand, the deceased actors may be harmed as their images are used in ways they never consented to, which raises ethical dilemmas about their post-mortem representation and how they would have wished to be remembered.
### Is our world better or worse because of digital representation?
The world could be seen as both better and worse due to digital representation.
**Better:** It allows for the continuation of an actor's legacy, keeps audiences engaged with beloved characters, and pushes the boundaries of creative storytelling.
**Worse:** It introduces ethical concerns about consent, the potential for manipulation through deepfake technology, and serves as a reminder that technology can sometimes replace genuine human expression.
### Are these impacts intended or unintended? How do you know?
The benefits of nostalgia and creative continuity seem to be intended impacts, as filmmakers choose to use CGI to enhance storytelling. However, the ethical dilemmas and potential for exploitation appear to be unintended consequences of this technology, as filmmakers may not fully consider or understand the implications of resurrecting an actor digitally without their consent. The controversy surrounding public reaction to these representations indicates that these ethical considerations are becoming more prominent in discussions about digital technology in film.