Why it’s time to examine the ethics of CGI use and what to do about it

Carrie+Fisher+speaks+at+the+2015+San+Diego+Comic+Con+conference+during+%E2%80%9CStar+Wars%3A+Force+Awakens%E2%80%9D+promotions.+Fisher+died+last+December+27%2C+and+was+known+for+playing+the+role+of+Princess+Leia+in+four+Star+Wars+films.

provided by Wikimedia Commons

Carrie Fisher speaks at the 2015 San Diego Comic Con conference during “Star Wars: Force Awakens” promotions. Fisher died last December 27, and was known for playing the role of Princess Leia in four Star Wars films.

by Neil Bai, Copy Editor

Movie studio LucasFilm announced that they had “no plans to digitally recreate Carrie Fisher’s performance as Princess or General Leia Organa” on January 13, 17 days after Carrie Fisher’s death. Fisher’s character was slated to play a key role in the upcoming sequels of the Star Wars series, and the statement indicates that the studio may need to alter the storyline of Episode VIII and other future films.

This isn’t the first time in recent memory where producers have had to decide between killing a character off-screen or applying Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) post-production to a replacement actor or actress. After Paul Walker’s death in the midst of Fast and Furious 7 shooting, Universal Studios and director James Wan decided to digitally insert shots of Walker from archived footage and photos over a replacement actor to complete the film.

Just this past winter, Lucasfilm released Rogue One, a spin-off of the Star War series, which used CGI to recreate the deceased actor Peter Cushing’s character Moff Tarkin and a young Leia Organa, originally played by Carrie Fisher. While Leia only appeared briefly in the end of the movie, Tarkin was present throughout the film had a lot of screentime.

As technology continues to advance and become more prevalent, it will become more and more difficult to differentiate the fake from the real, calling into question personality rights. California state laws since 1985 have declared that the image of a celebrity to be unusable until 70 years after his or her death unless they receive consent.  The law was set in place to prevent companies from using celebrities’ image after death. However, Lucasfilm has the ability to use the likeness of the actors and actresses for various merchandise such as toy figures due to their contracts with the actors, which defeats the purpose of the law.

Both Universal Studios and Lucasfilm gained permission from the respective deceased actor’s estates, but many writers and casual fans still have challenged the ethics of using a deceased person’s likeness to generate new content. In an unregulated environment, movie studios could use the same dead actors indefinitely in their movies.

There needs to be a set of laws or regulations established, monitoring what companies can and cannot do in regards to recreating deceased with characters. On top of the current personality rights entertainers already have, there needs to method set to prevent companies from continually abusing the rights they own over characters’ images. It makes sense for movie studios to use CGI to complete an unfinished film or series, as in the case of Fast and Furious and Star Wars, so they don’t have to reshoot multiple scenes, but there is little to no argument for a new movie franchise to use deceased actors. A law preventing the use CGI for such purposes would strike a balance between protecting the rights of the actor or actress while also aiding studios if misfortune befalls upon them.

However, a single law encompassing all of the nuances of the ethics of CGI use is probably impossible. It is up to the viewers, the ones watching the movies with deceased actors and actresses, to decide the extent to which CGI should be used and whether it should be used to bring back past characters at all.