It's a Chinese ad. If he spoke English it would be pretty useless in selling its product to a mass audience.
If Lee was still alive and now going to sue, would you make the same arguments to defend it?
Jarod, you don't like it when I insult the intelligence of your arguments, so why do you feel the need to ask me questions like this that beg for such a response? Why not just ask someone else?
LOL, you really cannot stop doing it. I asked you because you are the one in the thread who is fine with it, while all the others are not fine with it. So who else should I have been asking? Carcazoid already made the point that he doesn't care either way, so I didn't bother going into details.
If Bruce Lee were alive and threatening to sue, that would mean he didn't approve of the ad or the use of his likeness, so obviously that would be wrong and I would not be arguing in favor of it. But since he's not alive, it's a moot point. We have no idea how he would react. It's all supposition based on the fact that he didn't drink for health reasons, which doesn't necessarily mean he's a prohibitionist who hates the very thought of alcohol entirely. Surely you don't think every celebrity who does a commercial is a loyal user of the product or service they're selling?
Well, usually they are alive and can decide what they promote.
His very much living daughter however did approve and consult on the ad, and that's the person who has the rights to make those decisions now, so that's whose opinion I respect most. Why is it any of my business to tell her she's wrong about her own father? It's not like they have him doing some racist Charlie Chan routine which would be far enough over the top to make me question her judgment. He's just discussing personal life lessons, not getting drunk. It's a typical sophisticated liquor ad, with a bunch of esoteric commentary barely related to the product.
That is the point, no one can be sure, not even her. Which is all fine and well UNTIL someone profits from it. They are using his image to make money, and he can't give consent anymore. Mr. Adventure's point about adding CG clauses into wills is a very good one.
This digital recreation thing will get more and more common, there should be proper regulations to protect your own likeness from being exploited for profit even after your death. There are instances where it's perfectly fine. Using Marlon Brando's footage he already shot for Superman II in Superman Returns for example, because he already agreed that the footage was going to be used by the studio in some form or another. All they did was digitally creating new camera angles. What's not right is this ad, and it doesn't matter that a relative agreed to it.
In principle, it's the same issue as with organ donations. If you don't have a will, someone else decides what happens to you. And I personally think if there is no will, then by default nobody should be able to make that decision.
But yeah, if you don't agree with it, then just go ahead and call it stupid again.
