Actors Are Digitally Preserving Themselves To Continue Their Careers Beyond the Grave (technologyreview.com)

Improvements in CGI mean neither age nor death need stop some performers from working. From a report: From Carrie Fisher in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story to Paul Walker in the Fast & Furious movies, dead and magically "de-aged" actors are appearing more frequently on movie screens. Sometimes they even appear on stage: next year, an Amy Winehouse hologram will be going on tour to raise money for a charity established in the late singer's memory. Some actors and movie studios are buckling down and preparing for an inevitable future when using scanning technology to preserve 3-D digital replicas of performers is routine. Just because your star is inconveniently dead doesn't mean your generation-spanning blockbuster franchise can't continue to rake in the dough. Get the tech right and you can cash in on superstars and iconic characters forever.

[...] For celebrities, these scans are a chance to make money for their families post mortem, extend their legacy -- and even, in some strange way, preserve their youth. Visual-effects company Digital Domain -- which has worked on major pictures like Avengers: Infinity War and Ready Player One -- has also taken on individual celebrities as clients, though it hasn't publicized the service. "We haven't, you know, taken out any ads in newspapers to 'Save your likeness,'" says Darren Hendler, director of the firm's Digital Humans Group. The suite of services that the company offers actors includes a range of different scans to capture their famous faces from every conceivable angle -- making it simpler to re-create them in the future. Using hundreds of custom LED lights arranged in a sphere, numerous images can be recorded in seconds capturing what the person's face looks like lit from every angle -- and right down to the pores.

Comments

Only the Lookers will do this

[Anonymous Coward]

FP hypnotizes you with a pulse of light, yo!

Hotblack Desiato clearly started this trend...

[Anonymous Coward]

...nothing like spending a year dead for tax reasons...

Only a phase

[religionofpeas]

The next step will be digital actors, created from scratch. These don't age at all, do exactly what you want, don't act like divas and will work for peanuts.

Re:Only a phase

[olsmeister]

Most of the CGI, at least character CGI, with today's technology is still pretty obvious to me and it bugs me when I'm watching a movie. If I wanted to watch a cartoon, I would have watched a cartoon. It's way, way overdone especially with all the superhero movies that are being shat out of Hollywood these days. I'm all for a little subtle and unobtrusive enhancements to add to the storyline, but I sometimes get the feeling they're trying to save money on production by just doing everything possible with CGI and it really hurts the quality.

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

The next step will be digital actors, created from scratch.

It has begun.

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

More importantly, they don't go on Twitter and say idiotic things that will result in a public uproar to cancel the show, recast a movie, or shine other bad light on the studio.

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

... and opera companies will put on shows with virtual singers who do exactly what they want and DO act like divas.

Re:Only a phase

[SuperDre]

But once the actor has digitally scanned him-/herself, the digital actor won't age, and do exactly what you want and doesn't act like a diva. But yeah, he/she won't be available for peanuts..

Re:Only a phase

[ShanghaiBill]

Most of the CGI, at least character CGI, with today's technology is still pretty obvious to me

It is only obvious when it is obvious. There is plenty of CGI in movies that you don't even notice because it is done so well.

Character CGI is improving rapidly. Fully fake actors are already a thing in Japan. They even have fan clubs. They will be common in American films as well within a few years.

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifying the vocaloid trend narrows it down.

GP said "digital actor", but you could apply that as far as, say, Roger Rabbit. You'd probably want to tighten the definition, a "digital actor" can have several human bases. I believe the FFXV movie credited characters with a body actor for constructing the 3D model around, a motion-cap actor for script performance, and a voice actor. Even if you remove all that, even if you fast-forward the tech, even if you consider Hatsune Miku and bypass all modeling/voice, you'll still have puppeteers of some form for a long time yet.

If your concern is a "celebrity" that is ageless and doesn't diva about, then we basically have that too. The DCmarvel "entities" are rented out to whoever's buying, especially if it's just a comic print. The capeshit icons are obedient to your script, and will rake in their own fans. They have no mind of their own, only a semi-consistent canon that is kinda-sorta-maybe maintained across their purchases.

This is probably not far from where the likeness of Hollywood celebs will sit. There's probably more confusion about "rightsholders" and other garbage that everyone except beneficiaries doesn't give a fuck about, but other than that they're iconic puppets to trot out.

Re:Only a phase

[religionofpeas]

A digitally scanned actor will probably want to have a say in the roles that he/she will play. I imagine that they don't want to be portrayed in porn movies, for instance.

Re:Only a phase

[hairyfeet]

Sigh...what bugs me about this tech isn't an actor that CHOOSES to use this to help his/her family after they are gone, its using this tech to drag dead famous people from the grave to be corpse puppets while having had zero say in the matter!

I mean you know have a Roy Orbison zombie on tour, as is zombie Dio,Michael Jackson's Thriller is now real as they make his corpse Moonwalk so they can wring a few more shekels out of him, its really disgusting. I don't even wanna know what they are gonna end up doing to actresses with this shit, are they gonna have Marilyn Monroe doing an American Pie sequel? Maybe stuff Judy Garland's corpse in the next Wizard Of Oz to say some double entendres they can stuff in the trailer? Or what about the actors and actresses that still have some name recognition but who aren't making any bank for whatever scumbag relatives have the rights? How long before one of them shows up in a "its not (insert blank) XXX" porn parody?

Its one thing if the person chose, its their face and name after all, and they can put in clauses on what is and is not allowed, but those that are already dead? Yeah if its one thing we've seen its that there is pretty much zero respect for the dead if someone thinks they can make a buck off the body and as this tech gets better and cheaper? I'm betting shit is gonna get even worse than what we are seeing now which is already getting pretty gross IMHO.

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late.

Re:Only a phase

[cascadingstylesheet]

Its one thing if the person chose, its their face and name after all, and they can put in clauses on what is and is not allowed, but those that are already dead? Yeah if its one thing we've seen its that there is pretty much zero respect for the dead if someone thinks they can make a buck off the body and as this tech gets better and cheaper? I'm betting shit is gonna get even worse than what we are seeing now which is already getting pretty gross IMHO.

You raise some interesting copyright questions with your moral ones.

E.g., if we can't even use a cartoon mouse from the 1920s, why can we use these dead actors?

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

The next step will be digital actors, created from scratch. These don't age at all, do exactly what you want, don't act like divas and will work for peanuts.

And will have about as much mass appeal as the winners of American Idol, who almost consistently have gone on to have nobody give a damn. Same goes for pop bands created by marketing departments or reality shows.

Start making movies with "Generic CGI Actor #7", and nobody is going to watch it, because they don't care.

The actor makes a huge difference in the performance, making that purely digital would make the performance pretty pathetic.

Take Gollum in LOTR ... it was an awesome character because Andy Serkis did a great job of acting the role in the mo-cap. Same for Ultron with James Spader, he wasn't standing in room with a microphone.

I just can't see a purely digital actor resonating with people, and I can't imagine people would pay to go watch it.

Re:Only a phase

[fafalone]

'AI' assisted "deepfakes" are only going to get better, so one day every actor will be in porn movies whether they like it or not. And of course that's only a stepping stone to the glorious day in the future where I can download my Lucy Liu-bot.

Re:Only a phase

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Already happening. Hatsune Miku

The voice software combined with MMD or better animation software and you get "live concerts"

Re:Only a phase

[AlwinBarni]

Not only this, there are digitally created characters, who have holographic performances attracting huge crowds of fans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if digital actors will be able to vote. Seems plausible, since dead actors frequently vote.

Re:Only a phase

[Pinky's Brain]

But Andy Serkis isn't unique, another good actor could replace him and only a tiny percentage of the audience would perceive the difference. A contract negotiation with him is consequently a lot easier than with Robert Downey Jr.

Re: Only a phase

[backslashdot]

The problem is that if you make a realistic looking human. Itâ(TM)s virtually guaranteed that it would resemble someone. That person will claim his or her likekess was illegally used and demand royalties.

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but those are recordings of performances, not new original performances. And they're not really holographic.

Re:Only a phase

[AlwinBarni]

Not really, as far as I know the engine performs by itself, dancing to the music and singing written songs - it's not pre-choreographed and not pre-recorded.

Re: Only a phase

[backslashdot]

I think one solution might be to use pre-1923 paintings, pictures, and film as the likenesses to base characters on. The character can be aged or ethicinity biased based on known aging or ethnicity modification algorithms.

Another solution may be to base it on a combined features take from a labeled database of people who signed over their images freely or for a one time fee with certain looks or character traits.

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a big fan of vocaloids, but since Hatsune Miku isn't trying to look like a real human, that doesn't exactly disprove the initial assertion that "Most of the CGI, at least character CGI, with today's technology is still pretty obvious".

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? That's pretty cool, I haven't seen that.

So they can turn famous actors and musicians into screen savers now!

Re: Only a phase

[Quirkz]

That's it. I'm making a movie with the guy from The Scream as the main character.

Also, instead of just scanning actors, why not also scan attractive and/or distinctive people who can't act worth a damn? There's no reason the image has to be tied to a specific voice or acting ability.

Re:Only a phase

[Dorianny]

Not a lawyer but the "personality rights" are probably owned by the dead actors estate. Might be a good idea for actors to call their lawyers and draw up "personality usage" clauses

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

The only CGI that is not noticeable is inanimate shit like rock, metal and plastic objects. It's not because they are done so well, it's because it's easy to do those things. There has never been a CGI character that didn't look like utter shit and there never will be. It's impossible to get all of the details correct.

Re:Only a phase

[Calydor]

"He touched my bits!"

Re:Only a phase

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't say "impossible." There have been huge strides made already, and I could see them closing the gap in the next few years...climbing out of the Uncanny Valley.

Watch the Making of Rachel in Blade Runner 2049 - the test footage with the digital double is better than what they used in the film, and practically indistinguishable from the original footage of Sean Young.

Warning: turn down your volume first, the music is horrid!

Re:Only a phase

[hairyfeet]

Because all the rights to these 20s-50s actors and actresses are probably owned by some scumbag grandkid that came along after all the money had ran out and thus can be had for a couple grand and an 8-ball?

As we are seeing with the musicians that should have had plenty in the bank when they passed it really don't take much to get their relatives to whore them out for a zombie tour, how much easier is it gonna be for all those who aren't making bank for whatever scumbag grandkid to sell out? Maybe have Abbot and Costello doing dirty jokes in the next shitty Adam Sandler flick? How much did Yvonne Craig leave whatever relative got her rights, enough to keep her from being in a "This ain't Batgirl XXX"? Who owns the rights to Bruce and Brandon Lee and how long before they are getting their asses kicked in some direct to video Seagal flick?

The problem in this case will NOT be copyright, it will be how easily and cheaply the dirtbag relatives will sell off their dead. And the sad part is with the digital fake porn of real living celebs shows there IS a market for it so sooner or later some scumbag is gonna be selling their dead celeb relative to be in some raunchy comedy or porn spoof, its only a matter of when.

Re: Only a phase

[RespekMyAthorati]

Agreed.
And I want to gag when I read these breathless press releases from movie companies that go on about how "likelike" these SynthaStars are. When I saw the images of Leia and Tarkin in Rogue One, I burst out laughing at how pathetically unrealistic they appeared. I've seen more realistic looking figures in Madam Tussaud's.

Re:Only a phase

[youngone]

You raise some interesting copyright questions with your moral ones.

The copyright question that came to my mind is "If the actors never die, then why should the rights?".
You can bet some Hollywoo lawyer will have that same thought too. Pretty soon the necessary number of Senators and congressmen will be having that thought as well.

Re:Only a phase

[strikethree]

E.g., if we can't even use a cartoon mouse from the 1920s, why can we use these dead actors?

We can't. They can. Answer: Money.

Re:Only a phase

[CanadianMacFan]

For a lot of Hollywood movies the CGI is the storyline.

Good. Computers need to take their jobs, too.

[Seven Spirals]

Celebrities aren't immune to being obsolete. When digital character animation is so real looking that it's cheaper to use 3D models than humans (and they look suitably real). It's just a cost/benefit analysis to the studios. As soon as it stops making financial sense to keep a stable of actors and instead use 3D models and synthetic voices, they will. Sure, they might throw in a few cheap extras just for fun, but I doubt they'll want to pay any actor $50 million bucks just to be the star in a movie. They'll develop their own "digital actor properties" themselves. Personally, since I mostly dislike them, I won't be too disappointed. They can go out in the streets and hold signs with teachers (who are also long overdue for being replaced).

Re: Good. Computers need to take their jobs, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to hear more about how you think teachers can be replaced.

Re:Good. Computers need to take their jobs, too.

[Miamicanes]

It won't eliminate celebrities... but it will reduce the number of living celebrities, and turn their kids almost into literal "royalty". Why? The film industry is weird... when an actor gets paid $50 million to make a movie, he or she isn't just providing $50 million worth of acting-in-front-of-the-camera value... the mere fact that they were PAID $50 million adds value to the film by getting others to take the film seriously. Kids from "Hollywood families" will go to the bargaining table able to offer not only their own services, but licenses to use the likenesses of their long-dead (or retired, if their parents want to help bootstrap their kids' acting careers) parents as well. Win-win for studio execs... they can brag about paying huge amounts of money to "an actor", but metaphorically get two (or three, or four) for the price of one.

Another possibility is that studios will still use live actors for much of the filming, but use post-production CGI to make their mouths match whatever language they've been dubbed into for a particular audience. This is a particularly big deal for high-framerate video. At 24fps, you can take a lot of liberties with lip-sync and mouthing of words. At 48, 50, and 60fps... it's more noticeable. At 100 & 120fps, any disconnect between what a native-speaker expects the lips and mouth to look like and what they see is going to be instantly and painfully obvious. With the right software and CGI, you could have a workflow like this:

* Shoot an episode of some TV show at 50-120fps in English, Mandarin, or whatever other primary language you choose.

* Record all the localized dialogue in different languages... quite possibly while recording the faces and mouths of the voice actor to capture additional nuance.

* Using the appropriate software, match up the origin actor's spoken dialogue with his or her mouth movements. Then, after analyzing the mouth movements of the voice actor for the target language, re-render the original actor's mouth to match.

Once again, lip-sync of dubbed dialogue is something that Hollywood and the TV industry have traditionally been able to somewhat dance around at 24/25/30fps (noticeable, but not necessarily a HORRIFIC problem), but becomes something you simply can't ignore at higher framerates and higher-resolution... and ABSOLUTELY can't ignore when you combine high-framerate AND high-definition. At 3840x2160@120fps, you'd better make sure not only that the spoken dialogue matches the mouth movements perfectly, but that the entire audio pipeline is PRECISELY synchronized with the video and room acoustics as well, or you'll find yet another novel way to fall into the "uncanny valley".

Re:Good. Computers need to take their jobs, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

It certainly opens up some intriguing possibilities. I imagine the "stable of actors" part wouldn't go away though. The studios would want to have a variety of standard actor models that could be tweaked as needed for each role. There's a lot more to it than just the voice and appearance - mannerisms, quirks, and individual style are what make actors endearing. You still want to have the actor/character duality to bring out the desired aspects of the role. With virtual actors though, you could completely recast the movie in post and release multiple versions or (for an additional price) a version that would allow user-selected casting (using a special player and actor modules purchased separately). You could even put yourself in the movie, with hilariously awful results (and have your personal data uploaded to the studio in the process, of course).

I also imagine that the "random racist tirade" feature of human actors will be carried over to the virtual incarnations. Always a good way to generate interest when the virtual actor ceases to be useful.

Re: Good. Computers need to take their jobs, too.

[Seven Spirals]

Easy, Coward. Teachers should have been replaced in the 1980's by best-available instruction on video. Then, just put babysitters and minders in the classroom to keep the kids from going wild and destroying the VCR and TV and centralize questions from students through syndication (phone, email, postal mail, etc..). I'd rather learn physics from Stephen Hawking while some adult low-paid dweeb keeps the loud & emotionally dis-regulated kids quiet than some retard history/teacher coach re-purposed to read me the text book in class (my *actual* experience was the latter). Out of around 90 teachers I had in public school only two could have been called "decent". Yes, I grew up poor and going to poor schools. I'd have got a (far) superior education spending the same time with video instruction and actually decent teachers. The teachers I had could rarely answer any questions I had, or would just scolded me for trying to do math in some way that deviated from the book they didn't understand in the first place. How about the fact that my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade teachers tried to use "blended learning" on me (I had dyslexia badly) and had it not been for my dad teaching me to read using the phonetic method, I'd probably partially or completely illiterate right now which is what happens to most dyslexics who get some lazy asshole grade school teacher using "blending learning". Again, video instruction (remember "Hooked on Phonics" ?) would have been FAR superior and in fact *was* far superior. It's the source material my father used to teach me because he wasn't an educator but he was smart enough to know you don't try teaching dyslexics to read using word-recognition, not to mention that research shows nearly all kids learn to read faster using phonetics. Don't count on public school teachers to know that, though. They are likely to keep doing whatever they always did, despite newer better methods (that could easily be disseminated over video) existing to educate folks.

Re: Good. Computers need to take their jobs, too.

[Seven Spirals]

Also, if it's so weird/crazy/farfetched then why do you think colleges are scared shitless of Wikipedia? They know damn well that in almost every case the $250 textbook could be replaced by a free Wikimedia book or set of articles. I'd take it that much farther and assert that most of them could be replaced by a decent textbook or set of videos. Imagine if all the money we've spent giving teachers raises was spent on producing quality instructional content and giving it away? Look at news articles around open text books and you'll see a ton of them saying that teachers are having freak outs about them and so are the people who get kickbacks from textbooks. How (the fuck) is that helping to educate people?

Re: Good. Computers need to take their jobs, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Replace teachers with vidyatapes" is the kind of idea you come up with when you also think they really should make the whole plane out of the black box.

Re: Good. Computers need to take their jobs, too.

[Seven Spirals]

You forget, almost everyone has practical experience with teachers, not with building 777's. My practical experience says they mostly suck and should be replaced (by damn near anything and many better options exist).

The interesting question is

[bobstreo]

who owns the rights to the digitization?

I'd imagine "forward looking" studios including their ownership in contracts to the point where actors don't own their own faces.

The next step is digitizing the voices...

Re:The interesting question is

[anglico]

This came up before when the studio replaced Crispin Glover in Back To The Future 2, and he sued them for using his likeness.

From the wikipedia article:
  Dissatisfied with these plans, Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers, including Steven Spielberg, on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness nor had permission to use it. Due to Glover's lawsuit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements which state that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Re:The interesting question is

[weeboo0104]

Any likeness, to a real person, living or dead is purely coincidental.

Is that digital Hugh Jackman?
No, it's purely coincidental. We don't have to pay the real one anything!

Re:The interesting question is

[Oswald McWeany]

This came up before when the studio replaced Crispin Glover in Back To The Future 2, and he sued them for using his likeness.

From the wikipedia article:

  Dissatisfied with these plans, Glover filed a lawsuit against the producers, including Steven Spielberg, on the grounds that they neither owned his likeness nor had permission to use it. Due to Glover's lawsuit, there are now clauses in the Screen Actors Guild collective bargaining agreements which state that producers and actors are not allowed to use such methods to reproduce the likeness of other actors.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

How similar do they have to be though.

If they take Crispin Glover and make his nose slightly longer and his chin slightly shorter and change his hair texture slightly... is it still Crispin Glover?
Or if they start with a model that doesn't look like Crispin Glover and alter the parameters so that he does look like him.

Re:The interesting question is

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been curious about digitizing the voices and the best way to do so. Something that can take the phonetic alphabet and apply a voice to it would be cool. I'd really like the voice of Joshua from War Games to be my GPS voice.

Re:The interesting question is

[anglico]

I suppose that if the actor (Crispin Glover or otherwise) feels it looks too similar to their likeness that they will argue it in court.

Re:The interesting question is

[Anonymous Coward]

Like rounded corners? Actors certainly won't have time or money for that fight. The studios will be free to add a mole here or change a skin tone there with impunity.

Re:The interesting question is

[bobstreo]

I've been curious about digitizing the voices and the best way to do so. Something that can take the phonetic alphabet and apply a voice to it would be cool. I'd really like the voice of Joshua from War Games to be my GPS voice.

Nah, everyone wants the quality Jarvis voice of Paul Bettany.

Re:The interesting question is

[Ol Olsoc]

Any likeness, to a real person, living or dead is purely coincidental.

Is that digital Hugh Jackman? No, it's purely coincidental. We don't have to pay the real one anything!

Which sounds quite fair, but merely hastens the day that CG actors replace humans.

someday we'll all leave our digits behind?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's already happening? we're all natives now? preserve your history by booking passage on the great hereafter cruise.. lots of crown royals & slaves.. some hymenless monkeys, gargoyles, many virgins, plus support staff.. don't miss it.. the crowning feature of the cruise may be to be here after?

"Avengers: Infinity War"

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess that confirms Iron Man will not be dying, just becoming CGI when RDJ steps down from the role?

Seriously though, something weirds me out by it. In a way that is weirder than watching older movies where people have since died after them.
No idea why, not particularly upset or weirded out by trivial things, considering me as a person that has tesseract porn saved, just this is... I dunno, weird.
In saying that, if it was me in that situation, I would totally digitize my image for use long after I am dead. Even if I was just some casual average actor that wasn't all too popular, films need some backgrounders and disposable characters that just die-off quickly.

But then you have to consider the real actors being outplayed by CGI.
It's an iffy situation. It took a while, but pseudo-automation will slowly eat away at some acting jobs.
In a sense, it might not be all that bad either, because then some of these diva actors might stop demanding stupid amounts of money. I know acting is hard work, but not THAT hard. I could get by on a tenth the wage some of them get. Very comfortably at that.
Demand isn't even the issue, it's just greed when it gets to those numbers. It's not like they are being forced in to taking all the jobs ever, they have free-will to pick and choose if they are in such high demand.
This is why I have respect for those people that will happily take a mere pittance of a wage from a film project despite being in high demand all the time.

Re:"Avengers: Infinity War"

[bugs2squash]

In future movies he will just stay inside the suit, some kind of malfunction will make it impossible to use the inside camera or to get out of the suit.

Re:"Avengers: Infinity War"

[nitehawk214]

Or he accidentally becomes invisible.

Funny story: Richard Dean Anderson was actually in the greensuit during the scene with T'ealc.

Porn Applications!

[Zorro]

So now you can have anyone from any time do any thing for your ammusement.

Going to be lots of Wookie Porn!

Re:Porn Applications!

[Anonymous Coward]

true that. porn is tech's killer app.

Re: Porn Applications!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someday I want to be able to integrate those digital replicas into a morphable, realistic fuckbot that will cry and scream appropriately when I put it in Rape Mode.

And if the technology is still too far off, then I at least hope my children can have it. All of them. Wherever they are.

Re:Porn Applications!

[Kulahan]

Combine that with some better VR and maybe a fleshlight and you've got yourself a multi-million dollar industry, methinks.

Re:Porn Applications!

[thegarbz]

I would prefer Leia but hey whatever does it for you.

Maybe I'll meet you half way and we can have Leia feature in a furries film.

Kinda despicable.

[robsku]

So untasteful... Man, not so long ago this was just a joke in the simpsons....

Carrie Fisher was not in Rogue One

[dwillden]

They used a different actress who looked like the young Leia.

Re:Carrie Fisher was not in Rogue One

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sort of.
"Ingvild Deila had one of the most talked-about roles in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, but she was only on screen for about 15 seconds. No one even saw her face. Yet she can now claim on her IMDB page that she was once Princess Leia"..."In reality, she was playing Carrie Fisher playing Princess Leia. She was the body—the human puppet—behind the digital reconstruction of the 19-year-old Fisher at the end of the movie." - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612241/how-acting-as-carrie-fishers-puppet-made-a-career-for-rogue-ones-princess-leia/

"the appearance of young Princess Leia in the closing moment of Rogue One was a jaw-dropping shock, and now we know how things looked behind the scenes — before the CGI." - https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/heres-what-rogue-ones-princess-leia-looked-without-cgi

Re:Carrie Fisher was not in Rogue One

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish they had gotten Carrie Fisher to appear, and de-aged her like they did with Kurt Russell in Guardians 2, or Robert Downey Jr. in Capt. America: Civil War. It would have been far better than the dull, lifeless animation they actually used.

Leia had one line: "Hope." Carrie Fisher would have emoted the hell out of that one word.

Re: Carrie Fisher was not in Rogue One

[Anonymous Coward]

Carrie Fisher may not have been in the movie, but I was in Carrie Fisher. Just last week in fact.

I Will STEAL Those Digitals

[Anonymous Coward]

And create the biggest celebrity-packed zoophile porn epic, the likes of which has never been seen!

Fuck yeah!

Mind Uploading?

[TheNarrator]

So as far as Ray Kurzweill goes, is this essentially mind uploading? We are preserving the person's essense inside of the computer so it doesn't matter if they are biologically dead, right?

Re:Mind Uploading?

[drinkypoo]

We are preserving the person's essense inside of the computer so it doesn't matter if they are biologically dead, right?

It doesn't matter to us since "they" will still do what we expect of them. And it doesn't matter to them, either, since they are dead.

Uploading consciousness destructively makes sense only at the time of death, since that's when there's nothing to lose.

Re:Mind Uploading?

[StormReaver]

...is this essentially mind uploading?

No, this is nothing of the sort. It's no more mind uploading than taking a picture is soul stealing. This is much more high definition texturing.

Orange DeLorean

[Tablizer]

So we can "enjoy" Trump into perpetuity. MFGA! (F=future)

Keanu Reeves? You can't tell anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Most biting comment about an actor's performance I ever read was for Keanu Reeves in Johnny Mnemonic:

... Keanu Reeves is miscast as someone with too much information in his head.

How can you tell if he's alive or dead even now?

No End To It

[Anonymous Coward]

The film industry continues to tighten its grip on its assets, refusing to ever let them go. Trademarks will never expire. Actors will never expire. Nothing will slip from the industry's fingers into the public domain, or off this mortal coil. The long-deceased continue to act in films for all eternity. Their descendants ask when they'll be allowed to rest in peace. They demand the spirit of their long-buried grandfather be allowed to stop being paraded in sequel after inferior sequel, layering shame on their once respected career. Every film is now its own weekend at Bernie's, every summer comedy a macabre sideshow of all the actors whose likeness the studio has purchased. The family begs an end. Stop putting their dead Oscar and Emmy winning father in American Pie sequels. The industry executive laugh. The family has no claim. The actor is intellectual property. They belong to the industry. Forever.

Re:No End To It

[cascadingstylesheet]

The film industry continues to tighten its grip on its assets, refusing to ever let them go. Trademarks will never expire. Actors will never expire. Nothing will slip from the industry's fingers into the public domain, or off this mortal coil. The long-deceased continue to act in films for all eternity. Their descendants ask when they'll be allowed to rest in peace. They demand the spirit of their long-buried grandfather be allowed to stop being paraded in sequel after inferior sequel, layering shame on their once respected career. Every film is now its own weekend at Bernie's, every summer comedy a macabre sideshow of all the actors whose likeness the studio has purchased. The family begs an end. Stop putting their dead Oscar and Emmy winning father in American Pie sequels. The industry executive laugh. The family has no claim. The actor is intellectual property. They belong to the industry. Forever.

Or the opposite (sorta) will happen. We'll start asking why we can use a dead actor from the 1950s but not a cartoon mouse from the 1920s.

Re:No End To It

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Ooooh. For extra irony, they need to keep making sequels of "Death Becomes Her".

Copyright limits

[Anonymous Coward]

And then 70 years after they die, their digital self becomes public domain...

Do it

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

They should preserve the sex funk scent for sexbot implementation.

Nah don't bother. I'm sure blue cheese + musty from under a log will be much more popular.

Re:Do it

[Ol Olsoc]

They should preserve the sex funk scent for sexbot implementation.

Nah don't bother. I'm sure blue cheese + musty from under a log will be much more popular.

Good Gar! Everyone needs to take a shower first.

Reminds me of "The Congress"

[djbckr]

The Congress with Robin Wright. It's part of the storyline that she gets scanned so she doesn't have to act again.

Why just violence? What about porn?

[Iamthecheese]

And how long after death do these actors and studios think they can control the IP? Today's multi-million-dollar 3D model of Arnold Schwarzenegger for high budget movies is tomorrow's third-rate-resolution model of an old movie star, is the next day's framework for free 3D gay porn. There are only so many Mickey Mouses and James Bonds that people will care about so much later.

Forget CGI...

[The Original CDR]

Chuck Norris replaced himself with a... Toyota Truck.

Re:Forget CGI...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you replace yourself with a rubber duck and float away?

Re:Forget CGI...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious! Almost as funny and timely as a Rick Roll!

All your base are belong to us! LOL!

Twilight Zone

[cascadingstylesheet]

For celebrities, these scans are a chance to make money for their families post mortem, extend their legacy -- and even, in some strange way, preserve their youth.

Makes me think of that Twilight Zone episode with the aging movie diva.

I wonder what effect this might have on actors' mental health.

Soo......

[Anonymous Coward]

What impact will this have on Copyright law? Are we really going to see never ending extensions or perpetual copyrights from now on?

"Great Great Grammy sure is raking in the dough these days!", said several descendants living off their relatives likeness long after the person is dead but the copyright/whatever still lives on.

Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long will copyright for these things last?

Most excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

We can reelect 3D Nixon! He's lookin' pretty good right now.

Isn't there a movie for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like The Congress. I guess it's nearly plausible now. Perhaps it will be better than the movie suggests.

The next step

[OneHundredAndTen]

No actors. I mean, no flesh and blood actors. Actors will be all-CGI entities. Studios are obviously interested in this - imagine how much money they will save per movie by not having to pay the salary of the prima donna of the moment. Having said this, I imagine that whoever comes up with the hit CGI actor of the day will allow other entities the use of the actor - for a hefty fee. Nevertheless, since CGI actors will not be constrained like their human counterparts (e.g. they can be in several movies simultaneously) the fees will probably not reach the ridiculous heights that they do now.

Re:The next step

[Anonymous Coward]

Squaresoft certainly didn't save any money when they tried it with The Spirits Within. They talked a lot how the CGI characters they made in it were going to be treated like actors, and re-used in different films. I think the only thing they were ever used in again was Final Flight of the Osiris from the Animatrix.

Re:The next step

[whoever57]

Actors will be all-CGI entities. Studios are obviously interested in this - imagine how much money they will save per movie by not having to pay the salary of the prima donna of the moment.

I am not sure it will be so simple. People choose the movie they will watch based in part on the actors in the movie. Think of the actors' salaries as a promotional expense.

Re:The next step

[Anonymous Coward]

No actors. I mean, no flesh and blood actors. Actors will be all-CGI entities. Studios are obviously interested in this - imagine how much money they will save per movie by not having to pay the salary of the prima donna of the moment.

Now, imagine how much money they won't make at the box office as everyone decides that the films are terrible with badly acted characters and not worth paying for.

People like actors, and sometimes the actors can be the tipping point in seeing a film or not ... I won't watch anything with Tom Cruise at all, but I'd watch damned near anything with Samuel L Jackson, for instance.

If the studios think they'd have some great windfall by going entirely with digital actors, they might be in for a nasty surprise.

There's already way too many bad, formulaic movies out there. Digital actors aren't going to help the quality of the scripts, and while a good actor might still make a bad movie a success in the box office ... generic digital actors aren't going to do that.

I'm not so sure the movie-going public is going to want this.

Re:The next step

[Ol Olsoc]

Actors will be all-CGI entities. Studios are obviously interested in this - imagine how much money they will save per movie by not having to pay the salary of the prima donna of the moment.

I am not sure it will be so simple. People choose the movie they will watch based in part on the actors in the movie. Think of the actors' salaries as a promotional expense.

But a hundred years from now, is Tom Hanks going to be the hot draw?

To my mind, there will be three things going on that work against this Actor immortality

1. It would kind of freeze actors at right now.

2. They would be paying great great great grandchildren huge amounts of money for not a whole lot, and would end up getting involved in family disputes.

3. Why would people in 2250 give a damn about Tom Cruise?

This could be a useful thing as a novelty, but like all novelties, it will grow old, and pretty fast.

Re:The next step

[whoever57]

The movie industry will likely develop and exploit new "talent".

At one time, people would watch a movie because John Barrymore was in it. Very few people will do that today, but people may watch a movie because Drew Barrymore is in it.

Re:The next step

[Ol Olsoc]

The movie industry will likely develop and exploit new "talent".

At one time, people would watch a movie because John Barrymore was in it. Very few people will do that today, but people may watch a movie because Drew Barrymore is in it.

Drew is a fascinating actress. She either looks stunning, or not at all, and can turn on the tears like a switch. Regardless I do like her.

Replacing teachers

[davidwr]

Teachers who merely impart knowledge were partially replaced with the advent of writing: Once the student learns to read, he can teach himself a lot from the works of long-dead teachers.

Teachers who are "good teachers" - inspiring, able to reach those who are hard to reach, etc. - those are much harder to replace. However, radio and TV have allowed people like Mister Rogers of Mister Rogers Neighborhood to teach long after they stopped filming, and in some cases, after they died.

Re:Replacing teachers

[fish_in_the_c]

And 'what' does a teacher teach? IF a teachers job is to 'motivate and inspire' then there job is to teach 'values' 'philosophy' and 'religion' not information.
It is the 'value' of knowledge that inspires, even valuing education is the product of specific world view and philosophy.

It should be the parent and the communities job to inspire and motivate, the teacher is supposed to organize , filter topics, facilitate the use of tools that impart the information the students have already come with a desire to learn.

Re:Replacing teachers

[Seven Spirals]

I'd mod this up if I could. This is exactly what I'm saying. I'd rather learn from a really competent instructor via book, web, or video rather than hearing the same material live from whatever goober the local public ISD can scrape off the street. It's a lot cheaper to hire minders for the classroom than teachers who go on strike every 15 minutes trying to convince me, an engineering major, that their party-major bullshit lack of effort in college should get them the same salary as me. Teachers need to accept that they goofed off in school, took a shitty major, and now have to live with it. When was the last time artists and musicians all went on strike statewide to fleece more money from taxpayers? They don't typically do it because they know it's a waste of time - they were art or music majors and they didn't come out expecting someone to pay them a shitton. They expected to be starving artists and deal with it, unless of course they become teachers in which case you'll never hear the end of how valuable they are.

No need to die first

[CranberryKing]

As the Blade Runner "sequel" showed, if your star is notoriously difficult to work with (sorry Sean, that's just the perception), they can simulate you now.

Re:No need to die first

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they did the CGI Rachael because Sean Young was difficult to work with (she did participate in the process), but because she's much older now.

Life imitating art

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone ever see "The Congress"?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821641

Oh goodie so now we can look forward to

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright extensions to infinity and beyond.

Copyright protection...

[rnturn]

... will now have to be extended to perpetuity. Right?

Videodrome

[EdwardFurlong]

"After all, there is nothing real outside our perception of reality, is there?"

Some of this technology is good.

[Jhon]

I remember watching Tron: Legacy and the "young-ified" Jeff Bridges looked creepy and fake.

Then the first Ant-Man had a "young-ified" Michael Douglas. It was much better, but still looked "off"

Then the latest Ant-Man -- again, had a "young-ified" Micheal Douglas. The only "odd thing" about it was how good it looked. Knowing how he actually looks today made it difficult to look at him on-screen "young-ified". It was almost perfect.

We're talking about a short space of time for this improvement. Now imagine movies like Forrest Gump with better "high school" looking Gump -- and "college" looking Gump. One who looks more like the age their supposed to be -- and not just the actor with makeup and period clothes.

Also, it would be a good "insurance" policy for filming projects -- in case an actor dies ore becomes incapacitated during filming they can finish the "job" they signed on to.

Creating new material from dead actors? I'm very uncomfortable with. Even if we make it illegal we'll still see it. Hell, I can spend $20 for a MTG Black Lotus forgery that's nearly impossible to tell from the real thing (worth a few grand at least) from somewhere in China.

Re:Some of this technology is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Chinese people can put ink on cardboard? Woah.

Wings Out Of Shadow

[cmdr_klarg]

Not actors, but this story reminded me of this one:

http://www.baen.com/Chapters/0...

Looker

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprised nobody's mentioned the movie, Looker. (Maybe I was the only one who saw it?)

In the movie, Looker, a high tech company Digital Matrix scans actors in 3D to use their likenesses in commercials and movies. They don't need to keep those pesky actors around once they've scanned them, so they start killing them off to save on costs.

But it's not about the appearance.

[sbaker]

In most cases, it's not the appearance of someone that makes them a great actor - it's the way they convey emotion - how they deliver the lines - comedic timing...all of that kind of stuff.

Preserving the APPEARANCE of a great actor won't help them to actually ACT after their death.

Doubtless we can teach AI's to do that too - but merely capturing the appearance isn't what's required here.

After all - consider all of the cartoon/3D-animation movies where they hire actual good actors to play the roles.

When Robin Williams played the Genie in Aladdin - did we care that the genie didn't look like him? NO! It was his manic comedy style that sold the performance.

Not Paul Newman

[quonset]

Paul Newman has the following clause in his will to prevent anyone from using his image through:

“virtual performance or reanimation of any performance by me by the use of any technique, technology or medium now in existence or which may be known or created in the future anywhere in the universe.’’

Max Headroom

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to say it.
He was a leader among virtual men. Ahead of his time.

So much to add..

At some point no actors needed

[sad_]

At some point no real actors will be needed anymore, just 3D models that can be used forever.

Getting that big break

[The Snazster]

And the actor wannabes think it is hard to get their big break now? Recycling the old, popular ones, along with using completely made-up ones, is really going to raise the bar.

Re:Getting that big break

[ennis99]

in a few years we will not need more real actors, the digital actors will do the trick, personally it bothers me to see a film with digital actors, it's too superficial and fake. ____________________________________________________ https://downloader.vip/the-pir... https://downloader.vip/yify-yt... https://downloader.vip/rargb/

corpse puppet

[DarthVain]

I'm for sure going to use that term for now on whenever this topic comes up... and I agree. I'm sure it will turn into a whole new legal frontier, post death rights of use, specifying exactly what your "corpse puppet" might be used for etc...