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?
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?
be sure to include examples from the article as evidence to your claim.
….
"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?
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?
be sure to include examples from the article as evidence to your claim.
….
Answers
GPT-4o mini
### Digital Information Dilemmas
#### The Ethics of Computer-Generated Actors
**What is being digitized? How is the information represented digitally?**
The article discusses the digital reincarnation of deceased actors using CGI (computer-generated imagery). This involves creating a digital version of an actor's likeness and performance, as seen in films like “Fast and Furious 7” and “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story”. In these instances, the identities of actors like Paul Walker and Peter Cushing were recreated digitally to continue their characters’ stories. The information is represented through advanced rendering techniques that simulate the actor’s appearance and mannerisms on screen.
**What is the goal or purpose of digitizing this thing?**
The purpose of digitizing deceased actors is primarily to complete unfinished film projects and maintain narrative continuity. For instance, Paul Walker's character needed to be finished after his unexpected death during the filming of “Fast and Furious 7”. Similarly, Peter Cushing's character was included in “Rogue One” to enhance the connection to the original Star Wars film by visually and narratively bridging the two timelines.
**What are the benefits and harms of digitizing this content?**
The benefits include completing films that honor the actors' previous work, providing audiences with a sense of continuity in storytelling, and potentially increasing box office success due to nostalgia. However, harms include potential exploitation of the deceased actor’s likeness without their explicit consent, concerns over the ethicality of using an actor's image without them being able to participate, and the psychological discomfort for audiences who may find CGI representations of deceased actors unsettling. The article highlights mixed reactions, with some viewers finding the digital recreations "odd" or "unnerving".
**(Is someone benefitting or being harmed in this situation? If so who?)**
Film producers and studios benefit financially and creatively from the use of CGI to resurrect actors, as it allows them to complete films that might otherwise remain unfinished. On the other hand, the deceased actors' estates may feel conflicted about the use of their loved ones' likenesses. Actors, even in death, may be harmed by the implications that their performances—when resurrected digitally—may not align with their artistic intentions or consent. For example, Catherine Shoard expressed doubt about whether any actor would wish to see their work used posthumously without their involvement.
**Is our world better or worse because of digital representation?**
The impact of digital representation is nuanced, with both positive and negative dimensions. On one hand, it allows for creative storytelling possibilities and honors the memories of beloved actors. On the other hand, it raises significant ethical concerns regarding consent, the authenticity of performances, and the potential for misuse through practices like deepfakes. The article suggests a general unease surrounding these practices, as they blur the lines between reality and fiction.
**Are these impacts intended or unintended? How do you know?**
The impacts can largely be viewed as intended, as filmmakers aim to utilize CGI to enhance stories and produce commercially successful films. However, the unintended consequences arise from the societal and ethical discussions that follow—including concerns over consent and emotional responses from audiences. For instance, while the estate of Peter Cushing approved his digital representation in “Rogue One”, the broader question of whether the actor himself would have consented remains a point of contention, demonstrating the complex nature of ethical implications in digital representation.
#### The Ethics of Computer-Generated Actors
**What is being digitized? How is the information represented digitally?**
The article discusses the digital reincarnation of deceased actors using CGI (computer-generated imagery). This involves creating a digital version of an actor's likeness and performance, as seen in films like “Fast and Furious 7” and “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story”. In these instances, the identities of actors like Paul Walker and Peter Cushing were recreated digitally to continue their characters’ stories. The information is represented through advanced rendering techniques that simulate the actor’s appearance and mannerisms on screen.
**What is the goal or purpose of digitizing this thing?**
The purpose of digitizing deceased actors is primarily to complete unfinished film projects and maintain narrative continuity. For instance, Paul Walker's character needed to be finished after his unexpected death during the filming of “Fast and Furious 7”. Similarly, Peter Cushing's character was included in “Rogue One” to enhance the connection to the original Star Wars film by visually and narratively bridging the two timelines.
**What are the benefits and harms of digitizing this content?**
The benefits include completing films that honor the actors' previous work, providing audiences with a sense of continuity in storytelling, and potentially increasing box office success due to nostalgia. However, harms include potential exploitation of the deceased actor’s likeness without their explicit consent, concerns over the ethicality of using an actor's image without them being able to participate, and the psychological discomfort for audiences who may find CGI representations of deceased actors unsettling. The article highlights mixed reactions, with some viewers finding the digital recreations "odd" or "unnerving".
**(Is someone benefitting or being harmed in this situation? If so who?)**
Film producers and studios benefit financially and creatively from the use of CGI to resurrect actors, as it allows them to complete films that might otherwise remain unfinished. On the other hand, the deceased actors' estates may feel conflicted about the use of their loved ones' likenesses. Actors, even in death, may be harmed by the implications that their performances—when resurrected digitally—may not align with their artistic intentions or consent. For example, Catherine Shoard expressed doubt about whether any actor would wish to see their work used posthumously without their involvement.
**Is our world better or worse because of digital representation?**
The impact of digital representation is nuanced, with both positive and negative dimensions. On one hand, it allows for creative storytelling possibilities and honors the memories of beloved actors. On the other hand, it raises significant ethical concerns regarding consent, the authenticity of performances, and the potential for misuse through practices like deepfakes. The article suggests a general unease surrounding these practices, as they blur the lines between reality and fiction.
**Are these impacts intended or unintended? How do you know?**
The impacts can largely be viewed as intended, as filmmakers aim to utilize CGI to enhance stories and produce commercially successful films. However, the unintended consequences arise from the societal and ethical discussions that follow—including concerns over consent and emotional responses from audiences. For instance, while the estate of Peter Cushing approved his digital representation in “Rogue One”, the broader question of whether the actor himself would have consented remains a point of contention, demonstrating the complex nature of ethical implications in digital representation.