Star Wars: The Return of Peter Cushing

[phil]

I wonder if this would be happening if Peter Cushing had any surviving, immediate family members.

[huedell]

I agree. It does seem disrespectful. I can't imagine how I'd feel if that were my family member. It's hard for me to look at pictures of my family who are gone much less see them brought back as an animated thing.

I wonder if this would be happening if Peter Cushing had any surviving, immediate family members.

Well, Tom, looks like we don't have to worry about Cushing's family potentially having any hard times.

That said: To address phil's question (as well as all that feel similarly)... I'm assuming that the concern here is that Cushing couldn't have predicted his likeness would be used in such a realistic fashion?

Okay. I mean, as I pointed out earlier, actors (whether they be Ford or Hamill---or even Guiness or Cushing) are/were in the entertainment business... they're not people from an ancient mystical tribe whose ancestry embraces the idea that certain types of media suck your soul away, but others don't.

I mean, dead actors likenesses can still be seen in movies shown today with impunity (even movies that they were in that they ***gasp*** hated), simply because they were in the entertainment business, and that's how that business rolls.

Even IF the aforementioned dead actors were magically resurrected, there's nothing they could do to change things about this.....and they'd be crazy to try.

[Hedji]

I agree. I say go for it. The re-cast actor in Revenge of the Sith was unconvincing. This kind of technology has been talked about for a long time. If they can really pull it off, and stay out of the uncanny valley, I mean REALLY pull it off, it will be groundbreaking.

Maybe with Disney dollars behind it, they can really get it right. My jaw hit the floor when they de-Aged Michael Douglas for the flashback sequence in Ant-Man.

This is the future of visual effects. It's evolving. Maybe in the near future we can get a young Han Solo spinoff with young Harrison Ford. Or better yet, a proper Indiana Jones sequel with Ford set in the 1930s again.

Now, who's up for a sequel to Dracula starring Bela Lugosi?

[PNGwynne]

I don't want to see a Dracula sequel that badly, but that would probably be one license Junior would grant.

I'm surprised so many of you are willing to settle for an ersatz performance out of an actor's control or interpretation. I can only interpret this this as the influence of video games on film. So little discussion of the artistic or moral implication of this.

Because we're not discussing tweaking facial characteristics---that could be considered homage. Nor are we discussing likeness rights in relation to other media, say comics, games, or animation. That I can concede, though I think some of the analogies posted here about rights and likeness are false. It's not even restoring footage.

But an ersatz "real-world" film performance featuring a dead actor? Not a depicted recording as of Doktor Totekopf (Laurence Olivier) in Sky Captain? I'm not up for that, we might as well be watching games or cartoons for that, not film. It's a slippery artistic slope with no accounting for volition or interpretation and I don't endorse it. Just because we can do almost anything on film doesn't mean one should.

If it's the future of film, I find it sad. It's masturbatory, not creative. I'd be interested in how some industry insiders here feel about where this is all headed.

[huedell]

I don't want to see a Dracula sequel that badly, but that would probably be one license Junior would grant.

I'm surprised so many of you are willing to settle for an ersatz performance out of an actor's control or interpretation. I can only interpret this this as the influence of video games on film. So little discussion of the artistic or moral implication of this.

Well, PNG... you said:

It's masturbatory, not creative.

You obviously used the word the term "masturbatory" here in a negative sense... but to me, that "masturbatory" element is the origin of why special effects have been in film for a century or so.

What is a "Hollywood" movie, heck, what is "art" if not an "excessively self-absorbed or self-indulgent process" creating something that hits that sweet spot for yourself as the artist... that you hope others will relate to... and, in the case of Hollywood film particularly: That people will pay money for.

Another way of saying this is: It's a fine line between "creative" and "masturbatory".

Because we're not discussing tweaking facial characteristics---that could be considered homage. Nor are we discussing likeness rights in relation to other media, say comics, games, or animation. That I can concede, though I think some of the analogies posted here about rights and likeness are false.

Well, of course one will feel ANY analogy "false" if they already have their line drawn in the sand about "what is sacred" (and what isn't)... it's just a matter of perspective. I wouldn't be so foolish as to presume to change minds on this. However, I instinctively offer analogies... simply because they are so dang clear to me personally that when someone like yourself brings the aspect of "moral implications" into this, that's the time when my own "Oh my goodness. What is being said here" alarm goes off.

I mean, I can't help but think that film has already violated all KINDS of "natural law" for it's audience's (and the creator artist's) pleasure, but THIS is where one would draw the line? Just when it's really getting interesting?

It's the entertainment business... there's no better arena that suits the "give the people what they want" maxim better.

Now, before you imagine I'm totally blind to my admittedly excessive passion for entertainment extravagance.... I DO feel like the evil "Running Man" Richard Dawson saying stuff like that... so, please, whatever you do, don't send Peter Cushing's ghost to track me down to kill me with a billboard.

That said: Those guys were commenting on the future of reality TV... game shows... and what-not. Again, there's no "lying" going on here with Cushing. It's a creative endeavor... a special effect... a "puppet" if you will (where's Frank Oz's Oscar nomination for Yoda!)... to please the audience.

But an ersatz "real-world" film performance featuring a dead actor? Not a depicted recording as of Doktor Totekopf (Laurence Olivier) in Sky Captain? I'm not up for that, we might as well be watching games or cartoons for that, not film. It's a slippery artistic slope with no accounting for volition or interpretation and I don't endorse it. Just because we can do almost anything on film doesn't mean one should.

If it's the future of film, I find it sad. I'd be interested in how some industry insiders here feel about where this is all headed.

But I think you already know how they feel.

Insiders are the same as the people posting on this thread. Some agree with the process and some don't. Yet ALL of them know that their bread is buttered where their bread is buttered.

And, we know it too....

$



You can't stop progress... but one can speak up, speak out, and do one's best to regulate the whole thing... hopefully that'll retain a bit of integrity that we'd otherwise lose without an unfettered-by-jadedness moral compass keeping us on our toes... if not "honest".

[PNGwynne]

My perspective is based on performance, not business. My sensibility is footed more in theatre than SFX technology, although I love clever SFX. We all know Hollywood will do anything in an attempt to make a buck. Sometimes, those attempts are wonderfully creative and result in pop culture icons, even "art." Star Wars ("A New Hope") could be considered to have done that. But that is not what's being discussed here.

I stand by my comments, however quaint you feel they are. Parse and spin then as you will--you know exactly what I meant by "masturbatory." Further, since you press it, analogy is false if based on illogical conclusion or false precepts--broccoli to oranges, so to speak. Viewing old films, merchandising, CGI-backed voice-work of fantastic characters, even pastiche and homage, are not truly relevant to what's actually being proposed here for apt comparison.

You're up for it, fine. It may please fans. It may make money. I think it's lazy and disrespectful on many different levels.

[palitoy]

You're up for it, fine. It may please fans. It may make money. I think it's lazy and disrespectful on many different levels.

I tend to lean towards your perspective with the clause that I don't mind it if it's like a brief cameo that pays some sort of homage. I liked the Marlon Brando appearance in Superman Returns, that sort of thing.

However, I don't really want to see two hours of a dead Peter Cushing CGI puppet when there are living actors who could nail the performance. It feels....ghoulish.

[Hedji]

Bear in mind, they could "cheat" and have Tarkin appear through a hologram transmission or such. In the end, if it serves the story and I'm entertained, I could care less if it's an interpretation of a dead actor. And I love Peter Cushing dearly. I have a sizable collection of his work from Hammer and Amicus in my collection. I don't think it's disrespectful.

But, hey, what do I know? This opinion is coming from the man who adores the film Creepshow, which also used a dead actor.

See this guy, "The Creep" from the prologue?



Make Up Legend Tom Savini built him out of a real human skeleton. The deceased man from India had no say in his performance, any more than Peter Cushing will.



Yup. That's a real dead person on screen. How's THAT for ghoulish?

[Hedji]

By the way, this isn't entirely without precedent.

Tarkin was already digitally resurrected for the Clone Wars and Rebels animated series.



Definitely a computer likeness of Peter Cushing, to simulate his performance. The only difference is the arrangement of the pixels and illusion of reality. Tarkin was voiced by Stephen Stanton, who absolutely nails it. They would be wise to use him for Rogue One. Stanton also voiced narration for Roger Ebert in Ebert's biographical documentary, Life Itself. You'd swear it was Ebert's voice. Was that disrespectful? It seemed lovingly done to honor Ebert.

It's really an interesting discussion, I think.

It's all Forrest Gump's fault.

[mjaycox]

Bad precedent. I am against it

[huedell]

Further, since you press it, analogy is false if based on illogical conclusion or false precepts--broccoli to oranges, so to speak. Viewing old films, merchandising, CGI-backed voice-work of fantastic characters, even pastiche and homage, are not truly relevant to what's actually being proposed here for apt comparison.

And if this doesn't display a scenario that's something "more close than broccoli to oranges"....

By the way, this isn't entirely without precedent.

Tarkin was already digitally resurrected for the Clone Wars and Rebels animated series.



Definitely a computer likeness of Peter Cushing, to simulate his performance. The only difference is the arrangement of the pixels and illusion of reality. Tarkin was voiced by Stephen Stanton, who absolutely nails it.

....then I don't know what does.

If that arguably harmless example's so far off as to be "illogical conclusion or false precepts", then, you have me "up against the wall" so to speak. I mean, ultimately, one man's broccoli is another man's orange.

It's really an interesting discussion, I think.

As are many we have here, but I'd even go so far as to wager this conversation is one of the more "special" ones... as close to talking "religion or politics" as any other topic on that borderline.

Bad precedent. I am against it

Ooops. I spoke too soon (as is my proclivity). my supposed "harmless" apple is mjaycox's broccoli.

Never would have believed it.... but I suppose (to paraphrase a born-to-be inherently blasphemous-to-some film-effect puppet), "THAT is why I fail".

[PNGwynne]

Apples are still apples, Hue. I differentiated between animation and film in my posts, Andy. If the discussion is going to be finally defined by audio modulation and pixel ratios, so be it. I've stated my opinion and my reasons for it. We don't need to agree. And I don't consider this topic akin to either politics of religion, though I think there is, or should be, a moral component to such a discussion. Perhaps politics and religion--or properly, philosophical considerations of self, volition, and the purview of professions and art--will influence how such depictions progress across the media.

I can only share how distasteful I feel this is. But corporations are now legal entities--perhaps holograms will be, too. Why not replace cells with cels?

[Hedji]

I differentiated between animation and film in my posts, Andy.

I apologize. I missed that. Sometimes I read too quickly.

[PNGwynne]

^ Me, too. Thanks.

[phil]

The more I read about this I'm starting to feel insulted. It seems like the filmakers are convinced the audience can't accept another actor playing Tarkin. I don't see what the problem is with hiring an actor and having him look and act similar to Peter Cushing. I think they'd be better off using the time and money used to recreate Cushing on other aspects of the film.

It seems more and more like some one wants to show off their new technology. Just because you can do something doesnt mean you have to.