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?
Your answer should be in 7th grade sentences
"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?
Your answer should be in 7th grade sentences
Answers
GPT-4o mini
**Digital Information Dilemmas**
**The Ethics of Computer-Generated Actors: Period: 2-20-25**
**What is being digitized? How is the information represented digitally?**
The article discusses the use of CGI (computer-generated imagery) to recreate dead actors in films. This means that their likeness and movements can be digitally made using technology, so audiences can see characters they recognize, even if the actor has passed away. For example, Paul Walker was digitally recreated in "Fast and Furious 7," and Peter Cushing appeared again as Grand Moff Tarkin in "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story."
**What is the goal or purpose of digitizing this thing?**
The purpose of digitizing actors is to keep their characters alive in films, allowing the stories to continue even if the original actors are no longer available. Filmmakers want to honor the work and characters of these actors, making it feel like they are still part of the cinematic universe. For instance, bringing Paul Walker back was seen as a way to complete his character's story.
**What are the benefits and harms of digitizing this content? (Is someone benefitting or being harmed in this situation? If so, who?)**
The benefits of digitizing actors include having familiar faces in films, which can please fans and maintain the continuity of a story. For example, including Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin added to the Star Wars timeline that fans loved. However, there are harms, such as disrespecting the deceased actors’ wishes. There are concerns that using an actor’s likeness without their personal consent might not be ethical, even if their family agrees.
**Is our world better or worse because of digital representation?**
Digital representation has both positive and negative effects. On the one hand, it allows for thrilling storytelling and creativity, which can make movies more enjoyable. On the other hand, it raises ethical questions about consent and the potential misuse of technology, like creating "deepfakes."
**Are these impacts intended or unintended? How do you know?**
Some impacts are intended, such as the goal to honor actors and create a better viewing experience. For example, filmmakers aimed to enhance the continuity of characters. However, unintended consequences include ethical debates and concerns about being able to manipulate images of people without their consent. This shows that while filmmakers may want to celebrate actors, they might overlook the moral issues involved, as seen with the criticism from people who felt uneasy about seeing Peter Cushing brought back through CGI.
**The Ethics of Computer-Generated Actors: Period: 2-20-25**
**What is being digitized? How is the information represented digitally?**
The article discusses the use of CGI (computer-generated imagery) to recreate dead actors in films. This means that their likeness and movements can be digitally made using technology, so audiences can see characters they recognize, even if the actor has passed away. For example, Paul Walker was digitally recreated in "Fast and Furious 7," and Peter Cushing appeared again as Grand Moff Tarkin in "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story."
**What is the goal or purpose of digitizing this thing?**
The purpose of digitizing actors is to keep their characters alive in films, allowing the stories to continue even if the original actors are no longer available. Filmmakers want to honor the work and characters of these actors, making it feel like they are still part of the cinematic universe. For instance, bringing Paul Walker back was seen as a way to complete his character's story.
**What are the benefits and harms of digitizing this content? (Is someone benefitting or being harmed in this situation? If so, who?)**
The benefits of digitizing actors include having familiar faces in films, which can please fans and maintain the continuity of a story. For example, including Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin added to the Star Wars timeline that fans loved. However, there are harms, such as disrespecting the deceased actors’ wishes. There are concerns that using an actor’s likeness without their personal consent might not be ethical, even if their family agrees.
**Is our world better or worse because of digital representation?**
Digital representation has both positive and negative effects. On the one hand, it allows for thrilling storytelling and creativity, which can make movies more enjoyable. On the other hand, it raises ethical questions about consent and the potential misuse of technology, like creating "deepfakes."
**Are these impacts intended or unintended? How do you know?**
Some impacts are intended, such as the goal to honor actors and create a better viewing experience. For example, filmmakers aimed to enhance the continuity of characters. However, unintended consequences include ethical debates and concerns about being able to manipulate images of people without their consent. This shows that while filmmakers may want to celebrate actors, they might overlook the moral issues involved, as seen with the criticism from people who felt uneasy about seeing Peter Cushing brought back through CGI.