Saturday, December 31, 2016

Is It Ethical To Resurrect Dead Actors?

2 comments:

  1. If the family gets compensated, where's the harm?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Which is better, which is more harmful? On the one hand you have an actor's legacy-likeness that continues to provide for their family forever. But as a result you have money that could have gone to the next big deal actor, or just an up-and-comer trying to feed himself or herself and/or his or her own family. How would this be different than a robot or computer taking the job away from a human in any other industry? What would this do to the acting industry as a whole? Why would someone aspire to be as good as their favorite great (and deceased) actor when that actor is still seen in movies all the time? Personally, I think this kind of thing should be used very rarely. I also think this method should be the movie industry's wake-up call to stop regurgitating the same movies and their sequels over and over with potentially the same actors over and over because even though they may die, the producers can apparently continue to use their likeness. Tarkin had lines in Rogue One, so did Leia. Lines equal money to an actor. If a computer gets all the lines then flesh-and-blood actors don't get any money... you know, to make a living with. Should future actors have to compete for roles against historically iconic actors as well as their own generation of actors? I think that's unreasonable. I'm not saying don't use this method ever, but the vast majority of the time there is zero good reason to use a computer-recreated actor when there are millions of human actors that would LOVE a part like that. Why didn't Star Trek just use a digital version of Kirk? What would Chris Pine have had to say about being skipped over because a digital version of Shatner was possible for the role?

    ReplyDelete