Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

Faking It: The Ethical Challenges of Computer-Generated Actors

Profile image of Scott R.  Stroud

What ethical issues arise when deceased actors are inserted into films through technological means? A case study on the use of CGI actors in films by William Cuellar & Scott R. Stroud. More case studies at www.mediaethicsinitiative.org.

Related Papers

Stadler, J. “Synthetic Beings and Synthespian Ethics: Embodiment Technologies in Science/Fiction.” Projections: Journal of Movies and Mind Vol 13.2 (2019): 123–141.

Jane Stadler

The screen is the material and imaginative interface where biology meets technology. It is the nexus between science and fiction, where technological and ethical concerns surrounding synthespians, representations of replicants, and manifestations of synthetic biology come into play. This analysis of digital imaging and cinematic imagining of virtual actors and synthetic humans in films such as Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017) examines the ethical implications of digital embodiment technologies and cybernetics. I argue that it is necessary to bring together science and the arts to advance understandings of embodiment and technology. In doing so, I explore commonalities between ethical concerns about technobiological bodies in cultural and scientific discourse and developments such as the creation of virtual humans and "deepfake" digital doubles in screen media.

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

Matthew Crippen

Bazin, Cavell and other prominent theorists have asserted that movies are essentially photographic, with more recent scholars such as Carroll and Gaut protesting. Today CGI stands as a further counter, in addition to past objections such as editing, animation and blue screen. Also central in debates is whether photography is transparent, that is, whether it allows us to see things in other times and places. I maintain photography is transparent, notwithstanding objections citing digital manipulation. However, taking a cue from Cavell—albeit one poorly outlined in his work—I argue this is not so much because of what photography physically is, but because of what “photography” has come to mean. I similarly argue digital technologies have not significantly altered what cinematic media “are” because they have not fundamentally modified what they mean; and that cinema retains a photographic legacy, even when it abandons photographic technologies to digitally manufacture virtual worlds. Cavell, CGI, Cinema, Digital Technology, Photography, Transparency Thesis

Patricia Trapero

El artículo desarrolla la figura del actor-personaje como constructo transmediático. En él se analiza esta dualidad desde la perspectiva de su avatarización por una parte, y desde la construcción de un stardom 2.0, por otra. Todo ello desde la consideración del actor-personaje como un producto contemporáneo resignificado transmediáticamente.

Fodertics 6.0. Los retos del derecho ante la era digital

Javier André Murillo Chávez

MURILLO Chávez, Javier André - “La problemática jurídica detrás de la resurrección mediante CGI de actores y/o actrices fallecidos/as”. En: FODERTICS 6.0. Granada: Comares, 2017, pp. 63-73.

Cinema Journal

Bob Cluness

This thesis uses a detailed analysis of the 2015 sci-fi action film Hardcore Henry to explore the cinematic relationship between speed, shifts in our socioeconomic landscapes with the digitisation and economisation of knowledge and information, and the intensification of masculinity and gender roles in contemporary action cinema. The thesis is split into 3 sections; the first section is a short analysis of Hardcore Henry, where we examine the characteristics of the film and what makes particularly noteworthy in the canon of contemporary action cinema. We find that the film is noteworthy for two particular reasons; the first was the way that director Ilya Naishuller directed the film entirely in the first-person subjective shot. The second was the way that film incorporated into its cinematography, narrative, and structure, elements of PC and console gaming. The second section takes Hardcore Henry and places it in the context of the history of cinematic technology and theory. What I show is that far from a break from tradition, Hardcore Henry is but the latest iteration in what is a historic drive by cinema to articulate the speed and movement of society thanks to the development of cameras, technical support, and editing technology alongside the formation of theory and editing techniques that convey a sense of action and energy to a fast paced narrative. The third section situates Hardcore Henry along sociocultural and political-economic lines, where we see a historical shift from Michel Foucault’s idea of a disciplinary society, to Gilles Deleuze’s concept of a control society. In this shift we note how the film embodies the cultural changes brought by the advancement of digital technologies, cybernetics, and game theory on our social reality, as well as how the acceleration and intensification brought on by a episteme of control have enabled the digitisation and convergence of several cultural forms, as well as intensifying homogeneous representations of masculinity found in contemporary action cinema.

Mantasha Mahaboob

Proposed Topic Area for Research: My proposed topic is a Cultural history of Visual Effect. My area of the research is the history of visual effects studies not only the industrial and economic context of visual effects, but also the aesthetic characteristics of the reality effect. Briefly state the aim of your work Through research of the direction of visual effects history, from the past to the present, we can imagine what the visual effects of the future may impose. The representation of the future by means of visual effects provides us with a vision of future reality. Thus, visual effects function as a measure of the times of contemporaneous visions of reality and technology. In my research I will give some historical review and research the reality and effect of Visual effect.

PhD diss., University of New South Wales

Contemporary Hollywood Stardom

New Review of Film and Television Studies

David Scott Diffrient

This article builds upon Davina Quinlivan’s pioneering work on cinematic breathing by considering the conspicuous but often-overlooked place of breath in horror films. The author focuses specifically on the way still-breathing bodies – i.e. those of actors pretending to be deceased on screen – prick our senses and draw our attention to one of the genre’s unavoidable paradoxes. Stated simply, what all but the most metatextual or parodic horror films wish to hide – to keep concealed inside their own literal and figurative ‘basements’ – is the inherent artifice of fictional death, which has traditionally been represented by way of living actors who must mask their breathing in order to sustain the feeling of dread on which the genre is affectively reliant. Taking the title and premise of the recent U.S. theatrical release Don’t Breathe (2016) as a leaping-off point, but expanding the scope of this essay to include a representative cross section of international productions and trashy exploitation cinema, the author hopes to contribute to a better understanding of the genre’s unique respiratory tendencies as well as the risible yet significant textual ruptures that occur when bodies continue breathing after they have stopped living.

RELATED TOPICS

  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024

Advertisement

Insight and Technology

What are the ethics of cgi actors – and will they replace real ones.

James Dean is set to be the latest actor to star in a film long after his death, but the rise of true Hollywood immortality raises big ethical questions

By Donna Lu

15 January 2020

James Dean

CGI will resurrect James Dean this year to star in a new film.

Everett Collection Inc/Alamy Stock Photo

DIGITAL humans are coming to a screen near you. As computer-generated imagery (CGI) has become cheaper and more sophisticated, the film industry can now convincingly recreate people on screen – even actors who have been dead for decades. The technology’s ability to effectively keep celebrities alive beyond the grave is raising questions about public legacies and image rights.

Late in 2019, it was announced that US actor James Dean, who died in 1955, will star in a Vietnam…

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

To continue reading, subscribe today with our introductory offers

No commitment, cancel anytime*

Offer ends 28th October 2023.

*Cancel anytime within 14 days of payment to receive a refund on unserved issues.

Inclusive of applicable taxes (VAT)

Existing subscribers

More from New Scientist

Explore the latest news, articles and features

Camouflage inspired by leaves can hide things in visible and infrared

Subscriber-only

Wearable device monitors tumour size and displays it in an app

I'm teaching again after 20 years away. the tech is pure absurdity, nasa unveils x-59 plane to test supersonic flight over us cities, popular articles.

Trending New Scientist articles

Prindle Institute Logo

  • Ethics in Culture

Resurrecting James Dean: The Ethics of CGI Casting

' src=

James Dean, iconic star of Rebel Without a Cause , East of Eden , and Giant died in a tragic car accident in 1955 at the age of 24. Nevertheless, Dean fans may soon see him in a new role —as a supporting character in the upcoming Vietnam-era film Finding Jack.

Many people came out against the casting decision. Among the most noteworthy were Chris Evans and Elijah Wood. Evans tweeted, “This is awful. Maybe we can get a computer to paint us a new Picasso, or write a couple new John Lennon tunes. The complete lack of understanding here is shameful.” Wood tweeted, “NOPE. this shouldn’t be a thing.”

The producers of the film explained their decision. Anton Ernst, who is co-directing the film, told The Hollywood Reporter they “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.”

Supporters of the casting decision argue that the use of Dean’s image is a form of artistic expression. The filmmakers have the right to create the art that they want to create. No one has a right appear in any particular film. Artists can use whatever medium they like to create the work that they want to create. Though it is true that some people are upset about the decision, there are others that are thrilled. Even many years after his death, there are many James Dean fans, and this casting decision appeals to them. The filmmakers are making a film for this audience, and it is not reasonable to say that they can’t do so.

Many think that the casting of a CGI of Dean is a publicity stunt. That said, not all publicity stunts are morally wrong. Some such stunts are perfectly acceptable, even clever. Those that are concerned with the tactic as a stunt may feel that the filmmakers are being inauthentic. The filmmakers claim that their motivation is to unpack the narrative in the most affective way possible, but they are really just trying to sell movie tickets. The filmmakers may rightly respond: what’s wrong with trying to sell movie tickets? That’s the business they are in. Some people might value authenticity for its own sake. Again, however, the filmmakers can make the art that they want to make. They aren’t required to value authenticity.

Those opposed to the casting decision would be quick to point out that an ethical objection to the practice need not also be a legal objection. It may well be true that filmmakers should be free to express themselves through their art in whatever way they see fit. However, the fact that an artist can express himself or herself in a particular way doesn’t entail that they should engage in that kind of expression. CGI casting, and casting of a deceased person in particular, poses a variety of ethical problems.

One metaethical question posed by this case has to do with whether it is possible to harm a person after they are dead.  One potential harm has to do with consent. If Dean were alive today, he could decide whether he wanted to appear in the film or not. His estate gave permission to the production company to use Dean’s likeness, but it is far from clear that they should be able to do so. It is one thing for an estate to retain ownership of the work that an artist made while living. It is reasonable to believe that the fruits of that artist’s labor can be used to benefit their family and loved ones after the artist is dead. The idea that an artist’s family is in a position to agree to new art to be created using the artist’s likeness requires further ethical defense.

A related argument has to do with artistic expression as a form of speech. Often, the choices that an actor makes when it comes to the projects they take on are expressions of their values. Dean may not have wanted to participate in a movie about the Vietnam War. Some claim that Dean was a pacifist , so the message conveyed by the film may not be one that Dean would endorse. Bringing back James Dean through the use of CGI forces Dean to express a message he may not have wanted to express. On the other hand, if Dean no longer exists, it may make little sense to say that he is being forced to express a message.

Another set of arguments has to do with harms to others. There are many talented actors in the world, and most of them can’t find work. Ernst’s claim that they simply couldn’t find a living actor with the range to play this character is extremely difficult to believe. Filmmaking as an art form is a social enterprise. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum—there are social and political consequences to making certain kinds of artistic choices. Some argue that if filmmakers can cast living actors, they should.

There is also reason for concern that this casting choice sets a dangerous precedent, one that threatens to destroy some of the things that are good about art. Among other things, art is a way for us to understand ourselves and to relate to one another. This happens at multiple levels, including the creation of the art and the interpretation of its message. Good stories about human beings should, arguably, be told by human beings. When a character is computer generated, it might sever that important human connection. Some argue that art is not art at all if the intentions of an artist do not drive it. Even if the person creating the CGI makes artistic decisions, an actor isn’t making those decisions . Some argue that acting requires actors .

The ethical questions posed here are just another set that falls under a more general ethical umbrella. As technology continues to improve in remarkable and unexpected ways, we need to ask ourselves: which jobs should continue to be performed by living human beings?

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

The Lengths to Which We Go: Part 1

photograph of writers' strike sign

"Technological Unemployment" and the Writers’ Strike

photograph of Barbie dolls in packaging on shelf

'Barbie'’s Stereotypical Feminism

photograph of Danny DeVito at ComicCon panel for IASIP

Frank Reynolds as Diogenes the Cynic

Email Icon

Receive a weekly digest of our best content!

Digital Domain

  • Case Studies
  • In Production
  • Commercials
  • Live Action
  • Virtual Human
  • Visualization
  • Virtual Production
  • Mocap + Stage
  • Investor Relations
  • Los Angeles

Copyright © 2024 Digital Domain

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

What are the ethics of CGI actors – and will they replace real ones?

01.15.20 DIGITAL humans are coming to a screen near you. As computer-generated imagery (CGI) has become cheaper and more sophisticated, the film industry can now convincingly recreate people on screen – even actors who have been dead for decades. The technology’s ability to effectively keep celebrities alive beyond the grave is raising questions about public legacies and image rights.

Link to article: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2230205-what-are-the-ethics-of-cgi-actors-and-will-they-replace-real-ones/

Recent advancements raise questions about the ethics of CGI

With the recent release of Alita: Battle Angel and the subsequent frenzy regarding the titular character’s oversized eyes (designed in reference to the original manga character) the debate over the use of Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) has taken a new turn. Over the past few decades, the use of CGI has become a staple in most mainstream film. In fact, good CGI in contemporary film is frequent and often goes unnoticed, enhancing cityscapes, digitally filling in computer and phone screens and enhancing explosions. Additionally, good CGI has been seamlessly mixed with practical effects in recent years as seen in 2015’s “Mad Max: Fury Road,” which featured a mix of enhanced Nubian landscapes and practical stunts.

Recent advancements in CGI technology has allowed for more impressive undertakings. One notable example in the past decade is James Cameron’s 2009 science-fiction film, “Avatar.” Audiences applauded the film for its stunning otherworldly setting and the use of CGI to create a realistic alien species known as the Na’vi. Additionally, films like 2018’s “Avengers: Infinity War” and the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy proved that realistic CGI could coexist with live action actors.

However, CGI has further evolved from enhancing scenery and creating original characters to digitally de-aging actors to play young versions of their characters. Many critics of this practice argue that, by using CGI, a production can avoid the cost of hiring two actors to play two different ages. Additionally, further debate has explored the repercussions of the use of digital means to alter a character’s look rather than using more traditional routes of hair, makeup and prosthetics enhancement. This has blurred the line between an actor and their character. In digitally de-aging characters, graphics teams are actually altering the look of the actors themselves, such as the case with the digital de-aging of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen in “X-Men: The Last Stand” (2006). “Ghost in the Shell,” released in 2017, also raised questions as to the extent of digitally altering an actor as there was speculation that the filmmakers were testing effects to make lead actress Scarlett Johansson look “more Asian.” This idea was eventually rejected by the producers of the film, but it nevertheless blurred the line between altering the look of a character and altering the look of an actor.

The extent to what CGI can do has gone even further in recent years with the development of digital photo-realistic human faces. Not only has the film industry been able to perfectly marry motion capture and CGI, as they did with Andy Serkis’ motion capture performance in the reboot of the “Planet of the Apes” series, but they have also been able to digitally reproduce actors and actresses who have passed away. This usually happens after significant amounts of the film have already been shot. Noteworthy examples in recent years include Paul Walker, Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing, who have been “resurrected” for roles in their respective franchises. Walker’s role in the seventh installment of the “Fast and Furious” franchise was finished with digital replications of Walker’s face onto his brother’s body. In this case, the family consented to the role being finished without the presence of Walker as evidenced by the fact that his brother was instrumental in the completion of the project. Fisher’s role was also finished digitally after her passing, however, it did take some CGI magic to complete her final role.

Peter Cushing’s case, however, is different from the other two stars as his face, voice and likeness were used to create a completely original performance. Conversely, the other two actors’ roles were finished after they had already filmed a majority of their scenes. In Cushing’s case, an entirely new performance was created digitally with the use of a lookalike who studied Cushing’s movements. Facial movements of the lookalike were captured and later Cushing’s face was laid on top of those movements. Questions of morality arise when considering the difference between continuing an actor’s role in a franchise in order to finish a project that has already been started versus creating a completely new performance using CGI. CGI has crossed an ethical line in using the likeness of a deceased actor to continue their work on a franchise critics argue. It is commonplace that, should an actor pass away after production has wrapped, they would be recast. However, with advances in CGI, an actor can continue to “act” even after their passing.

Morality and the ethics of continuing an actor’s career, possibly damaging their memory and legacy, is in question. Although familial consent is often obtained in these cases, it is hard to understand how exactly that actor would have embodied the role. In this way, the face and name recognition of an actor that has passed away lives on without the actual substance of their performance and energy. Recent commercials featuring CGI reproductions of icons like Bruce Lee, Audrey Hepburn and Steve McQueen have pushed this issue even further into the public eye. Many argue that distorting the memory of these stars by associating them with material items is disrespectful to their work and life. As CGI continues to advance, will digitally created performances become indiscernible from actual actors? Or will the uncanny valley — human replications that elicit feelings of discomfort because they are not quite realistic enough — prevent photo-realistic reproductions of deceased actors from becoming the norm?

You may also like

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

66th Annual Grammy Awards Highlights

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

Camp Half-Blood Comes to Alumnae Hall in Upstage Performance

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

Album Review: Helena Deland’s “Goodnight Summerland”

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Should Hollywood Be Resurrecting Actors With CGI?

CGI Peter Cushing

Since 1959, when schlock auteur Ed Wood hired his chiropractor to finish the part of Bela Lugosi in "Plan 9 From Outer Space,"  Hollywood has grappled with the desire to bring long-dead actors into new films. In 1982, several years after franchise star Peter Sellers died, "The Trail of The Pink Panther" took unseen footage of the actor intended for an unproduced feature and wrote an entire film around it, supplementing it with clips of a new actor disguised as Sellers (or with his face obscured). The studio went to great efforts to assemble the Frankenstein of films, all in an effort to be able to market a new Pink Panther film as starring Peter Sellers, which lead to a lawsuit. Bruce Lee was likewise repurposed — using even more crude and transparent effects attempts — years after his passing for 1978's "Game of Death."

As special effects technology has advanced, the resurrection of dead stars has become even more prevalent and expanded to more than walk-on parts. By the 2000s, CGI was good enough that entirely new performances could be created in a computer using the likeness of Laurence Olivier, Oliver Reed, and others. Most recently, Harold Ramis was recreated for a pivotal scene in "Ghostbusters: Afterlife."  But just because Hollywood can bring back its biggest lost stars doesn't mean it should. Whether bringing back a dead actor is a moral or ethical question, a rights issue, or just a question of what's best for the future of the industry, there are a number of issues for this ever more disturbing digital trend. Scroll on and read what concerns us most when it comes to resurrecting dead actors on screen through the use of computer-generated imagery.

Whose permission is really needed?

Whether a new film's narrative makes resurrecting an actor natural to the story or whether it's just a shameless commercial cash-grab, studios need to get permission from the actor's estate or surviving heirs. But there's still a lot of legal murky waters here, particularly with regards to actors dead for decades, and that problem will only get worse as time marches on. Of all people, comedian Bill Cosby helped push efforts to change some of those laws as recently as 2012. But restrictions and allowances for a dead actor's likeness — particularly those that may one day  enter the public domain  — are still a sticky legal quandary. And there's a case to be made that until the law is rock solid, or unless stars themselves create provisions for the use of their likeness after death, such digital reprisals should be strictly limited.

Even for the recently deceased, actor likeness rights may not rest with the family in question, but with non-familial estates or licensing agencies like Authentic Brands Group — the agency that owns and controls the rights to deceased celebrities like Elvis Presley and Muhammad Ali . And when the primary focus is the bottom line, there's no telling how protective an agency will be or if they will truly have the actor's legacy and best wishes at heart. Sure, some executives may be protective of the star's brand and integrity, but even if they do care about what the actor may or may not have wanted, there's ultimately no way to know for certain. Even if the star's heirs, estates, or trusted agencies do give permission, it's often hard to watch a dead actor reimagined as CGI and shake the feeling that they've been dredged up from the grave against their will.

Does it disrespect the dead?

When a studio looks to bring back a dead star through visual effects, it's usually well-intentioned. Sometimes it's to continue the actor's role as an homage to what came before. For example, in 2006's "Superman Returns,"  Marlon Brando was recreated to reprise — albeit briefly — his part as Superman's Kryptonian father. Other times, it's to pay tribute to a lost star, as in "Ghostbusters: Afterlife." Whichever the case, audiences may wonder if the mere act of bringing back a dead star is disrespectful to those who never gave direct permission for such use before their passing.

It's hard to fault filmmakers for using CGI to finish an actor's performance following a tragic and untimely death during production, as we saw with Paul Walker  in "Furious 7." In the case of a surviving loved one giving permission to the filmmakers for other reasons, we should trust that they know best, both for themselves and for their lost family member. Grief can be a long process, and if allowing their late spouse, parent, or child to reappear through the magic of CGI brings them peace, comfort, or even just a little financial security, perhaps it's best to accept that decision. Still, as critics and fans, it can be hard not to try answering the moral and ethical question ourselves because the thought of a greedy estate dishonoring the memory of a lost star is sometimes too heinous a concern to ignore. Because ultimately, the inclusion of CGI representations of deceased stars, even if well-intentioned by the filmmakers and family members, can come across as manipulative and creepy. Indeed, it can feel like a ploy to play off the audience's love of nostalgia to elicit a positive fan reaction to seeing their favorite dead heroes.

Is permission even enough?

Even if the legal questions are settled, contracts are honored, and permission from the surviving family is granted, some wonder if that's enough to allow for a dead actor to be resurrected via CGI. To many, the recreation is simply unethical, even if the star themselves allowed for the eventuality in writing before their death. To these critics of CGI actors, bringing back dead actors is simply disrespectful and classless, and there's no better example of this than when actors are brought back to appear in TV commercials hawking all manner of commercial products, becoming little more than a digital pitch-man.

Whether that's Audrey Hepburn selling chocolate or Fred Astaire dancing with a vacuum, critics see the recreations as cheaply leveraging a dead actor — sometimes against their will. When Johnnie Walker resurrected Bruce Lee to sell its Blue Label whisky, many of his most ardent fans pointed out that the martial arts legend was not a drinker. And while his heirs insisted he didn't have a dislike of alcohol, it still left a bad taste in the mouths of many, who felt it was a  disgrace to his legacy to drag him out of the grave to become a run-of-the-mill advertisement. Elsewhere, Astaire's wife ardently defended the decision to permit the company to use her late husband's image, but that didn't stop many from calling it disturbing. No matter which side of the fence you stand on — approving of the practice or condemning it — it's hard to wonder if stars like Bruce Lee and Fred Astaire are better off left remembered as they were in the films they left behind.

Does it hurt Hollywood?

More than the ethical issues, there's another matter to be considered — the effect that pervasive digital resurrections could have on Hollywood as an industry. Consider a film like "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story." While the inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin may have made sense to the story," necessity is the mother of invention, and if Disney had been unable to resurrect Tarkin, it might have been forced to find more creative solutions. Perhaps it might have created a new exciting character and cast a fresh lesser-known actor who could have parlayed the work into a bigger career. And while established actor Guy Henry performed the motion capture for Tarkin, what will happen when AI gets good enough that we don't even need stand-ins or voice actors, and directors can control computer-generated dialog and performance of a life-like digital actor with the click of a button? When you can recast Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher to play their original roles as their younger selves, there will be no need to hire new actors as they did for "Solo: A Star Wars Story." 

In the future, if Hollywood could simply recreate a young version of a dead star, why cast anyone new? If an actor dies between sequels, there may be no need to thrust a new star into the limelight if they can simply recreate the original actor. If older stars can continue to look younger, and the day comes when dead ones can be resurrected with ease, there may be no need for new actors at all. That may sound like paranoid fear-mongering, but there really is no telling what the future holds.

Should there be more limits?

With the legal issues surrounding using the likeness of a dead actor being as complicated as they are, and outcry over digital actors growing, the industry may one day reach an impasse between actors, filmmakers, and studios. Given all the legal, moral, and ethical questions — as well as the problems the practice could create — we wonder if there should be limits placed on the use of dead actors in new roles through the use of CGI. This could mean a limited amount of screen time, limits on dialog, and restrictions on how those actors can be used — perhaps limited only to reprising old roles. Nevertheless, if the CGI resurrection trend continues and roles for deceased actors continue to grow, the default position might be a restriction. 

There are many forms we could discuss, but one easy restriction that could be established is that no actor can be repurposed after their death unless the actor specifically says otherwise while alive. We've already seen some actors put such restrictions in writing — most notably Robin Williams before his tragic passing. The fact that Williams felt the need to be so crystal clear about his post mortem wishes tells you how fraught with problems the issue is. Perhaps there should be a provision in every actor's agreement with the Screen Actor's Guild upon joining where they can stipulate the limits (or lack thereof) on the use of their likeness after their death. Whatever the solution, the controversy over resurrecting actors with computer effects is not going away and will only get worse as technology and artificial intelligence continues to improve.

Will audiences continue to embrace it?

In the earliest days of Hollywood co-opting the dead to appear via CGI, opinions were split. While there were vocal critics, many applauded the new technology for the wonders it could create and were happy to see beloved lost stars once again on the screen, whether it was a cameo in a new movie or shilling for a new product in a television ad. But as the technology has advanced, CGI actors are gaining bigger and bigger roles, including four full minutes of screen time for Peter Cushing's Grand Moff Tarkin in "Rogue One."  This trend will peak in the upcoming film "Finding Jack," which is controversially giving  James Dean (who died in 1955) a starring role. Indeed, it remains to be seen if audiences will continue to cheer for dead actors brought back with CGI as their roles increase in size and importance.

Even in the 1980s, the appearance of the first colorized movies caused controversy , and in 1997, George Lucas' special editions of his original "Star Wars" trilogy — with digital restoration  and newly shot footage — angered long time fans and raised the ire of film historians. When Coca-Cola added digitally enhanced footage of Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, and Louis Armstrong to a Diet Coke commercial starring Elton John, there were loud critics of the move , including some who felt it portended a dark future for the use of dead actors. It appears that their fears have turned out to be been well-founded. 

Is it even necessary?

Though the digital trickery can be an impressive, incredibly convincing, and breathtaking visual marvel, some question whether bringing back a dead actor through CGI is even necessary. Recasting roles with new actors and replacing dead stars with living ones for sequels has been going on long before the implementation of CGI. Whether that's James Bond being recast a half dozen times or Richard Harris replacing Michael Gambon as Dumbledore in the "Harry Potter," audiences have shown a willingness to accept and even embrace a new actor, even in a role played by someone who has died. In the case of Laurence Olivier in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow," there was seemingly no reason to recreate the dead icon as the face of the film's villain, especially when the movie's target audience of kids and teens would likely not have recognized him. And after  resurrecting the likes of Jack Lord for a 2016 episode of the new "Hawaii Five-O" or Peter Cushing for "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story," many have questioned whether the appearance of the revived CGI actors was really necessary to those stories and films. In fact, some believe they might have been better off without them.

In the film "Yesterday," when a man wakes up in a world where The Beatles never existed, actor Robert Carlye was hired to play an older John Lennon who was not assassinated in 1980. Through the use of heavy makeup and a strong performance from Carlyle that closely mimicked the famous Beatle, producers avoided the use of CGI. Had they opted for some kind of computer deep fake, it would have certainly created a controversy that could have taken away from the emotional weight of the scene.

Where do we go from here?

What started in a 1990 Diet Coke commercial expanded into the nearly entirely CGI film "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and grew into the likes of "Ghostbusters: Afterlife." Now we are living in a time where seemingly any person, living or dead, can be created and recreated, aged to infirmity, or de-aged to their youth. And it's now leading us inexorably towards a digital future that could be both wondrous and terrifying — a future where audiences may not be able to tell who or what is real and who is a digital recreation. The legal questions at play are going to grow, and the ethical and social ramifications will take center stage. While the imaginations of our greatest filmmakers may be fully unleashed and unfettered by the practical limitation of death itself, the actors of the forthcoming generations may find new competition in past generations' biggest stars.

However Hollywood moves forward from here — should it decide to change the way actors are brought back with CGI or not — the future of digital actors based on real ones will need to be based on collaborations between actors, filmmakers, and studios. As the opportunities and technologies grow, decisions regarding the expanded use of dead actors will also need to be made in good faith for the longevity of the industry and the legacies of the actors themselves rather than for the art, films, or bottom line.

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

A genuinely believable CGI actor? It won’t be long

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

Lecturer in Film and Television, Victorian College of the Arts, The University of Melbourne

Disclosure statement

Peter Allen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Melbourne provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

The recent release of Rogue One (2016), has sparked an unexpected controversy. The film features Peter Cushing, a familiar face from the original Star Wars: IV A New Hope (1977), reprising his role as Grand Moff Tarkin. Cushing appears in new scenes and interacts with fresh characters, despite having died in 1994. More than 20 years later, an actor has been digitally resurrected.

Responses have been mixed , to say the least. Some hate the digital version of Cushing because they perceive it to be artificial and distracting. Others have ethical concerns about the use of a deceased actor’s image (although Cushing’s estate gave permission for this). Other viewers just assumed they were watching a live actor.

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

As a visual effects artist, I found the work in Rogue One impressive but not totally convincing. There is still, for me at least, an element of the uncanny valley , that oddly disconcerting gap between the artificial and the real that is yet to be completely overcome in this area. If the computer generated (CG) version of Cushing had been used more sparingly the audience would have had less time to study every detail and search for flaws. (Of course, those of us who knew Cushing was dead seem to have been the only ones distracted.)

The CG version of young Princess Leia in Rogue One was altogether more successful with audiences, though I confess to finding her smooth-skinned youthful face less believably real than digital Cushing’s craggy visage. The acceptance of CG Leia was likely due to the character’s limited screen time – before you had time to fully process what you were seeing the scene was over. Fisher herself is said to have approved of the move. Since her death, however, Disney has emphasised that it will not be creating a digital Leia for future episodes.

Regardless of the success or otherwise of these examples , I suspect we are very close to a genuinely believable CG actor who will fool even experienced professionals. As an artist I find the prospect exciting, though as a human being I have twinges of concern that the technology may not always be used wisely .

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

Indeed the ability to digitally replicate actors as photoreal versions of themselves at any age is a tool of such powerful storytelling potential that regardless of public opinion, directors will demand the technology be continually improved.

This has been a long time coming. For at least 15 years, there have been various attempts at recreating photoreal digital versions of living actors.

The efforts range from the ridiculous – such as when Dwayne Johnson’s likeness was mangled to create the Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns (2001) – to a digitally rejuvenated Arnold Schwarzenegger who first appeared in Terminator Salvation (2009), before various versions of Arnold at different ages appeared in Terminator Genisys (2015).

Robert Zemeckis, with his trilogy of motion captured CG films, The Polar Express (2004), Beowulf (2007) and A Christmas Carol (2009), has arguably done more than any single director to push the boundaries of fully CG digital actors.

The characters from these films are oddly unnerving to watch and more than one commentator has called them “ creepy ”. However, they represent key moments in the development of an emerging technology.

Digital scans and body doubles

A more common current use for digital doubles is to portray living actors in situations of great danger. There are a couple of options in this scenario. One is an entirely digital character created from a full body scan of the actor. The other option is to digitally paste an actor’s face onto the body of a stunt performer.

Disney has recently denied a rumour that for the next Avengers film it plans to paste Benedict Cumberbatch’s face on to a body double to facilitate shooting around his busy schedule.

However, it is very likely that Cumberbatch will shoot closeups for performance when he is available and digitally altered body double shots will be used for his action sequences. Extensive digital doubles were already used for Doctor Strange (2016) so there is no reason to assume Disney is about to change its working methodology.

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

Less well known is the use of this technology for “beautification”. Body doubles for nude scenes have been used in Hollywood for decades. Now, an actor’s face can be pasted right on top of the body double for a seamless effect, though no actor wants to admit to it and visual effects companies are required to sign non-disclosure agreements.

It is generally only when things go terribly wrong – such as when viewers noticed obvious signs that Lena Headey’s nude Game of Thrones Walk of Shame involved Headey’s face pasted on to another actress’s body – that it’s noticed.

There is an evolving debate about the ethics of actors being made to appear younger or more attractive. However the “person” on screen has always been a fictional character that has only ever been partially brought to life by a performer. Makeup, wardrobe, lighting, all contribute significantly to their look. Digital effects are just one more tool giving filmmakers added flexibility in the depiction of the character.

Digitally archiving for beauty

It is now standard practice for any up and coming young actor who draws the attention of a major studio to have a full body scan completed so that there will always be a digitally archived version of them in their “prime”.

These archives can be accessed for dangerous stunt work, or in the case of unexpected injury or death that may prevent the actor from completing filming, such as when Paul Walker died before completing Furious 7 .

However it is becoming more common for scans such as these to be used as the basis for beauty work .

Harrison Ford famously refused to dye his hair for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) and again for Star Wars: the Force Awakens (2015). However, not all actors may have the confidence or the industry clout to resist when there is a digitally perfect version of their 25 or 30-year-old self readily available to be used.

  • Film making

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

Industrial Officer (Senior)

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

Supply Chain Management – Open Rank (Tenure-Track)

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

RESEARCH SUPPORT OFFICER

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

IT Operations Lead

case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer in Physiotherapy

The ethics of using CGI to resurrect dead actors

If paul walker can star in ‘fast x’ right now, what else could we cast him in.

Paul Walker and Vin Diesel in “Fast Five.”

Paul Walker and Vin Diesel in “Fast Five.”

Jaimie Trueblood

About a week ago, I was shocked to see the late Paul Walker in a trailer for “Fast X” — the 12th movie in the “Fast and Furious” franchise. I had naively assumed the franchise wrote Walker’s character off the series after his death in 2013. But this isn’t even the first “Fast and Furious” movie Walker’s been resurrected for. In 2013, the franchise used CGI to complete Walker’s scenes in “Fast and Furious 7” after his untimely death.

The same was done for Carrie Fisher in “The Rise of Skywalker.” Audrey Hepburn got virtually resurrected for a Galaxy advertisement. “Game of Death” brought Bruce Lee back to life. Oliver Reed, Peter Cushing, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Brandon Lee have also made posthumous returns to the big screen.

CGI resurrections aren’t necessarily commonplace, but it’s a practice that has faced a fair share of controversy. And it raises several question, such as: How do they do it? Who gives movie-makers permission to resurrect actors? And what does it mean for the future of movies?

A brief history of resurrecting actors in movies

Before CGI, late actors were resurrected in movies using practical methods such as body doubles, masks and limited screen time.

Amid filming for “Game of Death,” Lee was killed by a brain swell from hyponatremia, or having a low concentration of sodium in the bloodstream, per the New York Post . To complete the second half of the movie, Lee’s scenes were cut down and filled using stand-ins wearing beards and masks to hide their faces. Cardboard cutouts of Lee were even used in some scenes, reports Yahoo News .

Nowadays, advancements in CGI has allowed movie-makers to bring an actor’s likeness back with impressive results. But it’s still a complicated business — bringing Fisher back to the “Star Wars” franchise was a “massive kind of problem” and a “gigantic puzzle,” according to the movie’s visual effects supervisor, Roger Guyett, per Insider .

How are actors resurrected with CGI?

It’s complex. “Rogue One” filmmakers explained their experience with the process to The New York Times after using CGI to resurrect Cushing as the “Star Wars” character Grand Moff Tarkin.

Filmmakers cast Guy Henry for principal photography — the 6-foot-4 actor has a similar build and stature as the late Cushing. Throughout filming, Henry wore motion-capture materials on his head so his face could be digitally replaced with Cushing’s image.

“We’re transforming the actor’s appearance to look like another character, but just using digital technology,” said John Knoll, the chief creative officer at Industrial Light & Magic and a visual effects supervisor on “Rogue One,” per The New York Times .

It’s difficult to perfectly match a late actor’s likeness. Nuances such as how they open their mouth or move their eyebrows might be different from the stand-in actor. When in doubt, filmmakers prioritized realism over likeness.

“It is extremely labor-intensive and expensive to do. I don’t imagine anybody engaging in this kind of thing in a casual manner,” Knoll added.

Who gives filmmakers permission to resurrect public figures?

Again, it’s complicated. It depends on who holds the late actor’s rights.

The right of publicity became California state law in 1985. The law states that the rights to a celebrity’s image — including voice and likeness — are transferred to the celebrity’s estate after they die. Any money from licensing the image also goes to the estate. And if a filmmaker wants to use an actor’s image, they require permission from the estate, per Wired .

Right of publicity laws vary in each U.S. state. Some states provide post-mortem protection, which means a public figure’s image is exempt from use in certain media, such as motion pictures, songs, plays and novels.

Post-mortem protection lasts for a different length of time in each state. “In California’s case, the limit is 70 years after the death of the person in question. In Illinois, that term is 50 years after the person’s death,” David A. Simon told Wired , a visiting assistant professor at the University of Kansas and a fellow at the Hanken School of Economics. “The differences are numerous between states.”

But once the right of publicity sentence passes, the figure’s image is fair game. James Dean, for example, died in 1955 and is coming up on the end of his 70-year protection, which could potentially make his image free to anyone.

“If they still have an identity that is being commercialised, such as their estate selling products and services associated with them, then that person’s identity could continue to be protected under US trademark and unfair competition law,” Jennifer Rothman, professor of law at Loyola Marymount University, told Wired .

Worldwide XR’s catalogue of celebrities

A few years ago, intellectual property licensing specialist CMG Worldwide joined forces with content creation studio Observe Media to form Worldwide XR.

Worldwide XR represents more than 400 actors, athletes, musicians, artists and historical icons, such as Dean, Rosa Parks, Lou Gehrig, Andre the Giant, Malcolm X, Maya Angelou and Chuck Berry.

CMG Worldwide was started by Mark Roesler in 1982 after finding that there was no one to represent the estates of dead stars. Families of celebrities began approaching CMG for representation. The company’s first two clients were Elvis Presley and Dean, per Wired .

“Once you successfully represent one dead celebrity, other estates will look to that company that did well with someone else,” Rothman told Wired .

Public pushback over CGI resurrection

In 2019, film directors Anton Ernst and Tati Golykh announced that Dean would star in “Finding Jack” — the Vietnam War action drama would resurrect Dean through CGI, per The Hollywood Reporter .

The public wasn’t happy about it.

“This is awful,” Chris Evans criticized on Twitter . “Maybe we can get a computer to paint us a new Picasso. Or write a couple new John Lennon tunes.”

Elijah Wood also slammed the use of Dean. “NOPE. this shouldn’t be a thing,” Wood tweeted .

“Finding Jack” never made it to theaters.

“If we aren’t doing anything to hurt James Dean’s image, why are people pushing back?” asked Ernst, per The New York Times . “I’m trying to analyze what the moral issue is here.”

One “moral issue” linked to CGI resurrection is the ability to exploit dead actors by casting them in roles they could not select for themselves.

“Acting is about making a choice to take on a role, and is not a choice that should be make for anyone,” Zac Thompson wrote in HuffPost after Cushing was revived for “Rogue One.”

“I mean, we already have problems with leaking celebrities’ nude selfies, so how far off are we from mapping their likeness onto pornographic scenes? It’s unprecedented territory, a whole new world of morality and consent that needs be addressed,” continued Thompson.

Once the floodgates are opened, several concerns arise. Who has access to this technology? Where is the line drawn? What type of roles take this too far? And will CGI eventually replace real-life actors?

Faking It: The Ethical Challenges of Computer-Generated Actors

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 Photo: LucasFilm 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 “ Golem ” 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 Story used 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” (Tylt.com) 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, I’d then want to turn in a performance I had bupkis to do with.” Rich Haridy of New Atlas also expressed some

1 | www.mediaethicsinitiative.org

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 ” (AI-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?

Discussion Questions:

1. What values are in conflict when filmmakers want to use CGI to place a deceased actor into a film? 2. What is different about placing a currently living actor into a film through the use of CGI? How does the use of CGI differ from using realistic “look-alike” actors? 3. What sort of limits would you place on the use of CGI versions of deceased actors? How would you prevent unethical use of deceased actors? 4. How should society balance concerns with an actor’s (or celebrity’s) public image with an artist’s need to be creative with the tools at their disposal? 5. What ethical questions would be raised by using CGI to insert “extras,” and not central characters, into a film?

Further Information:

Haridy, R. (2016, December 19). “Star Wars: Rogue One and Hollywood's trip through the uncanny valley.” Available at: https://newatlas.com/star-wars-rogue- one-uncanny-valley-hollywood/47008/

Langshaw, M. (2017, August 02). “8 Disturbing Times Actors Were Brought Back From The Dead By CGI.” Available at: http://whatculture.com/film/8-disturbing- times-actors-were-brought-back-from-the-dead-by-cgi

Shoard, C. (2016, December 21). “Peter Cushing is dead. Rogue One's resurrection is a digital indignity“. The Guardian . Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/21/peter-cushing-rogue-

2 | www.mediaethicsinitiative.org

one-resurrection-cgi

The Tylt. Should Hollywood use CGI to replace dead actors in movies? Available at: https://thetylt.com/entertainment/should-hollywood-use-cgi-to-replace-dead- actors-in-movies

William Cuellar & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D. Media Ethics Initiative Center for Media Engagement University of Texas at Austin February 12, 2019

www.mediaethicsinitiative.org

3 | www.mediaethicsinitiative.org

Web Analytics

Home

  • Announcements

Does CGI cross ethical boundaries when it depicts deceased actors?

I am a huge “Star Wars” fan.  My parents took me to see the first film when I was 10 years old. The queue stretched around the block, and I’ve never forgotten the frisson of excitement I felt when the star destroyer slowly filled the screen. I spent my teenage years wanting to be Han Solo. (Actually, I still do. My husband is more of a Chewbacca, and my kids cosplay Rey and Kylo Ren; the fights are impressive.)

One of the performances that stayed with me from that first viewing was Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin, Governor of the Empire’s fearsome battle station, the Death Star. Cushing was already a wonderfully sinister legend, even to a 10-year-old British girl. Watching “Rogue One,” I was delighted to see the character of Governor Tarkin appear on screen almost forty years on, apparently unchanged. However, rather than blanket praise for the work of the Industrial Light and Magic team (the special effects wizards behind the whole Star Wars franchise), the character’s physical appearance, so famously linked to that of the deceased actor, caused a babble of concern across the press and social media. Catherine Shoard , film editor of The Guardian, declared this resurrection “ a digital indignity ”: I beg to differ.

The technology of CGI – computer generate imagery – is already familiar to most cinema goers, and has made possible the effective realisation of sci fi and fantasy films including the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Harry Potter series. We’ve applauded the rapid improvement from jerky approximations of fantastic creatures to smooth and seamless character integrations. So, why did so many people find Rogue One’s digital resurrection morbid , disrespectful , or downright unethical ?

Resurrecting actors is nothing new

First, let’s debunk the myth that this is the first time a movie has involved the CGI portrayal of an actor. Of course it isn’t! I first recall CGI being used in “Gladiator” (1999), when Oliver Reed died three weeks before the end of filming. Director Ridley Scott’s careful use of offcuts and a bit of (at the time) new-fangled CGI, patching Reed’s features onto body doubles , ensured that he gave a complete performance from beyond the grave. It was quite fun watching the film and trying to spot the CGI elements. Even before that, in 1988, the accidental death of Roy Kinnear during the filming of “The Return of the Musketeers” required the producers to get creative. The technical wizardry we have now was in its infancy, so Kinnear’s role was completed by a double and a sound-alike, who both went uncredited. Although the mechanics were different, the principle was the same: The show must go on!

A number of TV commercials have also been produced and aired after their stars died. These advertisements have attracted more attention than films that have undergone role completion editing, possibly because it’s more obvious to audiences that the star has had no physical part in the production.  Steve Bennett-Day, Executive Creative Director for Havas Helia , voiced popular concerns about CGI in his 2016 article for Campaign , a branding and marketing publication. He articulates the perceived difference between ‘respectful’ ads and what he calls the ‘creepy’ use of CGI. In his article, he compares accidents of broadcast timing where the shooting has been completed, and genuine tributes like the re-broadcast of a much-loved British ad in response to demand after the passing of the star, against poorly-judged CGI depiction. He specifically criticises the use of images of the late Audrey Hepburn in a Galaxy chocolate ad, and also notes a ‘downright awful’ (sic) Saatchi & Saatchi print ad that featured an image of the late Kurt Cobain showing off Dr Marten boots under his angel robes. Bennett-Day’s criticism once again draws attention to the key ethical question that was raised by “Rogue One”: When the CGI performance we’re watching is a completely new creation, has a line been crossed?

Protecting our identities

Photographers are all aware of the rules around image copyright. A photographer who takes a picture legally owns that image, with certain exceptions: in particular, if one takes a picture of artwork, the copyright for the photograph rests with the creator of the original artwork. With an individual, Publicity Rights are applied in a similar vein. So, if the likeness of an individual is used to create a CGI character, where do the rights reside? This is an issue both of privacy and of earnings.

Legal protection of Publicity (Personality) Rights differs from country to country and from state to state, a complex patchwork of legislation even in the United States alone.  We know that the “Star Wars” team sought and was granted permission from Peter Cushing’s estate to create the CGI representation of Governor Tarkin as portrayed. The late, great Robin Williams used his will to restrict the use of his name, signature, photograph and likeness for 25 years from his death, according to clause 4.3.1.1 (a) in the legal documentation published by the Hollywood Reporter . Did the shrewd star anticipate that CGI technology could eventually be used to resurrect dead celebrities? The provision in Williams’ will avoids reliance upon inconsistent publicity protection against an increasingly complex and global technological backdrop.

Why CGI for Rogue One?

We might wonder why the character of Grand Moff Tarkin was given the CGI treatment where others were not. Rebel leader Mon Mothma was played by Caroline Blakiston in the original trilogy, and by Genevieve O’Reilly in “Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” and in “Rogue One” – a seamless transition, as the actresses were of the same build, and the character’s neat dark bobbed hair, robes and chains of office were straightforward to recreate. However, Peter Cushing’s fabulous cheekbones and sunken face were his trademark, and as such gave a unique feel to the Tarkin character. Lookalike Australian actor Wayne Pygram successfully portrayed Tarkin in a short cameo in “Episode III: Revenge of the Sith,” and there have been questions around why Pygram did not reprise the role. We don’t know the answer, but Pygram has done very little acting work since “Star Wars” and the TV series “Farscape,” and it’s possible that he was simply not in a position to take the part. For continuity of character, and without an easy lookalike solution, it would appear that Rogue One’s producers had no choice but to turn to Industrial Light and Magic.

Actor Guy Henry, the performer you see behind the CGI overlay of Cushing’s features and who is rightfully credited for the role of Governor Tarkin, thinks that creating more completely new performances by deceased actors through CGI is an unlikely scenario. When interviewed by Hollywood Reporter’s Aaron Crouch , he said, “I can't really see why they would [do the same again] …… This was very specifically to recreate this character in a way that served the story of  Rogue One .” In this context, it seems that the CGI work in “Rogue One” was really a continuation of the same performance in “A New Hope,” a way of ensuring that the show did go on.  It’s interesting to note that while a Carrie Fisher CGI cameo closed Rogue One, and was in any case produced during her lifetime, a statement has recently been issued by the Star Wars team to reassure fans that for future films “Lucasfilm has no plans to digitally recreate Carrie Fisher’s performance as Princess or General Leia Organa.” This seems to bear out Guy Henry’s assertion, and will come as a relief to those who found the Rogue One Tarkin character disturbing.

Animation vs. reality

If anything underlines the realistic nature of the character in “Rogue One” as a technical accomplishment rather than a new Cushing performance, it’s the nomination for Outstanding Animated Performance in a Photoreal Feature in the upcoming Visual Effects Society Awards . Grand Moff Tarkin is up against Newt Scamander’s Niffler , the cutest of Fantastic Beasts in the latest excursion into the Harry Potter universe .

We praise CGI when it delivers fantastic creatures to our screens with such veracity. We are delighted that they integrate seamlessly with the real and interact with human actors in a way that, previously, we could only imagine. We recognize that there are actors creating those personalities behind CGI masks. Andy Serkis, for example, is an accomplished character actor: his live performance as Gollum set against the final CGI version in this video of Weta Digital’s work is worth watching, for the performance as much as the insight into the creative animation process.

For years, we have seen realistic animations of the human form in films and video games. We’ve also witnessed crossovers in the other direction: for instance, Angelina Jolie played a real representation of animated character Lara Croft in the “Tomb Raider” films. It seems that discomfort with the CGI representation of Grand Moff Tarkin stems purely from the fact that he is not a fantastic beast, and we recognize the features of the fictional character as those of a real deceased fellow human. With Tarkin, we are committing the ultimate sin of confusing the actor with the character.

There is nothing unethical about the CGI character of Grand Moff Tarkin: it is appropriate to the story, fundamentally the continuation of an existing performance, and it’s a grandly successful creation by Guy Henry and the Industrial Light and Magic team. However, the controversy serves as a warning that the digital world is moving fast, and that considerations of privacy may need to take this technology into account, too.

Kate Baucherel BA(Hons) FCMA is a digital strategist specialising in emerging tech, particularly blockchain and distributed ledger technology. She is COO of City Web Consultants, working on the application of blockchain, AR/VR and machine learning, for blue chip clients in the UK and overseas. Kate’s first job was with an IBM business partner in Denver, back when the AS/400 was a really cool piece of hardware, and the World Wide Web didn’t exist. She has held senior technical and financial roles in businesses across multiple sectors and is a published author of non-fiction and sci-fi. Find out more at  www.katebaucherel.com

Add new comment

Restricted html.

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.

Copyright © Center for Digital Ethics & Policy 2010-2017.

Privacy Policy

IMAGES

  1. 7 movie actors made impossibly young by CGI

    case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

  2. Case Study On Ethical Issues In Information Technology

    case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

  3. (PDF) UNDERSTANDING AND THE PRACTICE OF ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AMONG

    case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

  4. What are the ethics of CGI actors

    case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

  5. Annotating 2.pdf

    case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

  6. Philo 1

    case study the ethical challenges of cgi actors in films

VIDEO

  1. All enmity is nothing in the face of danger.#film #shorts

  2. ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE FILM INDUSTRY: IS HOLLYWOOD ETHICALLY BLIND?

  3. The Flash Used Christopher Reeve's Face WITHOUT FAMILY CONSENT!!

  4. # Ethical dilemma # case study # ethics # upsc # dharam sankat

  5. Christopher Nolan and CGI #oppenheimer #BeyondReelTalk

  6. Is a filmmaker free to have an ethical practice?

COMMENTS

  1. The Ethics of Computer-Generated Actors

    CASE STUDY: The Ethical Challenges of CGI Actors in Films Case Study PDF | Additional Case Studies 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).

  2. PDF aking It: The thical hallenges of omputer -enerated Actors

    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? Discussion Questions: 1. What values are in conflict when filmmakers want to use CGI to place a deceased actor into a film? 2.

  3. Faking It: The Ethical Challenges of Computer-Generated Actors

    This analysis of digital imaging and cinematic imagining of virtual actors and synthetic humans in films such as Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017) examines the ethical implications of digital embodiment technologies and cybernetics.

  4. What are the ethics of CGI actors

    What are the ethics of CGI actors - and will they replace real ones? James Dean is set to be the latest actor to star in a film long after his death, but the rise of true Hollywood...

  5. Resurrecting James Dean: The Ethics of CGI Casting

    Resurrecting James Dean: The Ethics of CGI Casting By Rachel Robison-Greene 2 Jan 2020 "James Dean Collage" by Eliza is licensed under CC BY 2.0 (via Flickr) James Dean, iconic star of Rebel Without a Cause, East of Eden, and Giant died in a tragic car accident in 1955 at the age of 24.

  6. What are the ethics of CGI actors

    01.15.20 DIGITAL humans are coming to a screen near you. As computer-generated imagery (CGI) has become cheaper and more sophisticated, the film industry can now convincingly recreate people on screen - even actors who have been dead for decades.

  7. Digital Humans on the Big Screen

    CGI is best known in science fiction or other fantastic settings, where audiences presumably already have suspended their disbelief. ... Creating lifelike representations of actors in roles they never played does raise challenging ethical issues. One is the ability to put words in the mouths of politicians, or to put celebrities into ...

  8. The Ethical Implications of CGI in Media the Ethical Implications of

    The Ethical Implications of CGI in Media The Ethical Implications of CGI in Media by Robert Wahl, PhD Presented at the 83rd Annual ... The ethical challenges of recreating deceased actors are potentially great and have not been adequately addressed. A few examples of this potential include recreating actors and not paying their estate, placing ...

  9. Recent advancements raise questions about the ethics of CGI

    Questions of morality arise when considering the difference between continuing an actor's role in a franchise in order to finish a project that has already been started versus creating a completely new performance using CGI. CGI has crossed an ethical line in using the likeness of a deceased actor to continue their work on a franchise critics ...

  10. Exploring the Impact of CGI in Modern Cinema: Advancements and ...

    • CGI has made it possible to transform actors into entirely different characters, both human and non-human. Dive into the world of motion capture and digital actors, examining their use and ...

  11. Should Hollywood Be Resurrecting Actors With CGI?

    Whether bringing back a dead actor is a moral or ethical question, a rights issue, or just a question of what's best for the future of the industry, there are a number of issues for this ever more ...

  12. A genuinely believable CGI actor? It won't be long

    The film features Peter Cushing, a familiar face from the original Star Wars: IV A New Hope (1977), reprising his role as Grand Moff Tarkin. Cushing appears in new scenes and interacts with fresh ...

  13. Is it ethical to resurrect dead actors with CGI?

    Public pushback over CGI resurrection. In 2019, film directors Anton Ernst and Tati Golykh announced that Dean would star in "Finding Jack" — the Vietnam War action drama would resurrect Dean through CGI, per The Hollywood Reporter. The public wasn't happy about it. "This is awful," Chris Evans criticized on Twitter.

  14. The Ethical Challenges of Computer-Generated Actors

    1. What values are in conflict when filmmakers want to use CGI to place a deceased actor into a film? 2. What is different about placing a currently living actor into a film through the use of CGI? How does the use of CGI differ from using realistic "look-alike" actors? 3.

  15. Does CGI cross ethical boundaries when it depicts deceased actors

    Resurrecting actors is nothing new. First, let's debunk the myth that this is the first time a movie has involved the CGI portrayal of an actor. Of course it isn't! I first recall CGI being used in "Gladiator" (1999), when Oliver Reed died three weeks before the end of filming.

  16. The Ethics of Computer-Generated Actors.pdf

    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 defen...

  17. The Ethics of Computer-Generated Actors.docx

    The Ethics of Computer- Generated Actors CASE STUDY: The Ethical Challenges of CGI Actors in Films Case Study | Additional Case Studies PHOTO: LUCASFILM 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 ...

  18. Ethics of Computer-Generated Actors.pdf

    The Ethics of Computer-Generated Actors CASE STUDY: The Ethical Challenges of CGI Actors in Films Case Study Additional Case Studies 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).

  19. Annotating 2.pdf

    (-) (The ethical problems can result in people thinking that the dead aren't getting the respect they deserve, using their image for the profit of income and money) The use of CGI to change the look of actors is nothing new.

  20. 43-cgi-actors-case-study.pdf

    1 |Faking It: The Ethical Challenges of Computer-Generated Actors 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).

  21. actorcgiannotations1.docx

    The Ethics of Computer- Generated Actors CASE STUDY: The Ethical Challenges of CGI Actors in Films Case Study | Additional Case Studies PHOTO: LUCASFILM Long-dead actors continue to achieve a sort of immortality in their films.

  22. UNIT111PROJECTAPCSP.docx

    CASE STUDY: The Ethical Challenges of CGI Actors in Films Case Study PDF | Additional Case Studies + benefit - harm :| Impact 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).