Using CGI to bring dead film stars back to life

Ricardodaforce

Self requested ban
Suspended / Banned
Messages
18,340
Edit My Images
No
Read an interesting article earlier about advances in CGI and it's applications in TV and film. Galaxy brought back the 19 year old Audrey Hepburn for an advert successfully. How do you feel about film-makers taking it to the next level and creating films with James Dean, David Niven, Marilyn Monroe etc?
 
Absolutely against it. Pay a live actor to star in your films, using cgi to fake dead actors is obviously an accountants idea, make money for nothing.
 
Looked totally CGI.
Hepburn in the ad really doesn't.
It was surprising considering the amount of money spent on the film and the technology they were using.

But you have to start somewhere to see what is possible.
 
Now that actors who are alive today, knows about it, they can put it in their Last Will, or any other legal documents, giving the option of if they don't mind their images are to be used or if they do not want it done.

Plus as far as I can tell, before using late actor's images, the film makers would have to seek permissions from the late actor's children or grandchildren, something usually done when it comes to the fact that film makers wants to turn a novel into a movie, but need permissions from the children/grandchildren of the late author, so I guess same thing applies to using images.

If I was an actor and I passed away, I would expect film makers to ask my children if the film makers can use my image as a CGI part in a movie, after all, don't newspapers tend to seek parents permissions before publishing images of children who died, in newspapers?
 
I'm looking forward to seeing 'Loving Vincent' but that's the first fully hand-painted animation film not CGI.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=47h6pQ6StCk


Personally I don't have an issue with CGI as long as its tastefully done and has the full backing and support from the family, estate or legal representative(s).
 
It was surprising considering the amount of money spent on the film and the technology they were using.

But you have to start somewhere to see what is possible.

Wasn't the worst Arnie CGI I've ever seen.
That honour belongs to Total Recall.
 
Would be dead against it (pardon the pun). You can't create the screen presence they had through cgi.
 
Well they have run out of good stories and now good actors!

The industry is finally realising Good method acting and real characterful men and women who have screen presence are, well getting thin on the ground, its no wonder they are trying to resurrect the old stars from the dead. What else can you do when you are making films on the scale they are because of the insatiable demand for more revenue from production companies and studios.......
 
Ford have done a couple of pretty good ads with Steve Mcqueen a few years ago, must have used a certain amount of CGI in them, they look pretty good.
 
Ford have done a couple of pretty good ads with Steve Mcqueen a few years ago, must have used a certain amount of CGI in them, they look pretty good.

Not quite the same. They superimposed existing footage of him onto a body double according to this article in the NYTimes.
 
Ain't that the truth. Tom Cruise is currently shooting a reboot of The Mummy.
I actually think Tom Cruise is a decent actor. His roles in Born on the 4th July, Magnolia, and Jerry Maguire are excellent I felt he was unlucky not to have an oscar for at least one of them. Shame about his religious beliefs though.
 
I actually think Tom Cruise is a decent actor. His roles in Born on the 4th July, Magnolia, and Jerry Maguire are excellent I felt he was unlucky not to have an oscar for at least one of them. Shame about his religious beliefs though.

I'm more perturbed that they are feeling to remake the Mummy already.
 
I'm more perturbed that they are feeling to remake the Mummy already.

I know the stunt co-ordinator on this film. Its a remake of the original 1932 Mummy Film, not the naff Brendon Fraser ones.
 
AS already said it's a remake of an 84 year old film.
 
AS already said it's a remake of an 84 year old film.


Just looked it up Ruth, I see now you were not speaking from experience......:D
 
Last edited:
Just looked it up Ruth, I see now you were not speaking from experience......:D

No I wasn't, I was speaking after reading post 19.
Is your wittering as easily explained? ;)
 
No I wasn't, I was speaking after reading post 19.
Is your wittering as easily explained? ;)

LOL nope! as I am a complex chap who is unlikely to be fathomed by one such as yourself....:p

:D
 
LOL nope! as I am a complex chap who is unlikely to be fathomed by one such as yourself....:p

:D
You're right!
Life's too short to be fathoming out others "issues".
Still figuring out my own! :D :D
 
Let the dead rest, exploiting them for gain now is like grave robbing.
 
Let the dead rest, exploiting them for gain now is like grave robbing.
You won't be watching any old films with now deceased actors in then. Someone somewhere will still be making money from it. (y)
 
You won't be watching any old films with now deceased actors in then. Someone somewhere will still be making money from it. (y)

So did the actors when they were alive and royalties go their estates after death. CGI profits only the company that uses them.
 
So did the actors when they were alive and royalties go their estates after death. CGI profits only the company that uses them.

Not true. The Audrey Hepburn estate profited from use of her likeness in the above mentioned advertisement.
 
You shouldn't be, Hollywood is about making money not entertainment.

So that's no different to any other business then. Entertainment (or the lack thereof) is just the vehicle by which they make said money.
 
Pretty much what I said yes. People go through life with the idea that businesses exist to service their needs, to make it easier for them to buy the stuff they need when in reality it's the other way round.
 
You won't be watching any old films with now deceased actors in then. Someone somewhere will still be making money from it. (y)

They made their money from those films, they've been paid for those contracts, but this they didn't sign up to or agree too.
 
They made their money from those films, they've been paid for those contracts, but this they didn't sign up to or agree too.
It's not much different to paying a lookalike to be a stand in, just in this case it's someone at a computer being paid to do the acting.
I wonder if Jeff Bridges got two pay packets for Tron Legacy.
 
Absolutely against it. Pay a live actor to star in your films, using cgi to fake dead actors is obviously an accountants idea, make money for nothing.

Actually your wrong, it's not money for nothing, for one a number of CGI experts were employed, and two they had to get permission and a licence from the estate of Hepburn (aka her family) so it was not free in the slightest
 
Meanwhile an actor or actress is sitting out of work, creativity goes out the window and in fifty years all we have are cgi characters spouting inane drivel because it's easy money for studio bosses. In fact no studios either, no camera operators, soundmen, no support staff, caterers and who knows what other jobs tied in with film making.
 
Back
Top