How do you feel about deaging/'resurrected' actors for classic roles?

[Danlav05]

Without spoiling too much for those sensitive amongst us, that other popular star franchise has used digital technology to de age some of their characters (i.e. ANH-era Leia in Rogue One) and bring back Peter Cushing's Grand Moff Tarkin in the same film.

This motion capture tech was probably best pioneered by Robert Zemeckis.

We aer already seeing this technology being used in Star Trek as trailer-by-trailer we are seeing Brent Spinter become Lt Commander Data once more (slowly and not without criticism!), but how would you feel about further use?

Could we see young actors being used to digitally become William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy circa 1966? Howe would you feel about it? Or for flashbacks in the new Picard show?

I think Shatner has already spoken about it!

 

[Alexander Corrino]

I think I'm forever scarred by that "look, we've made Professor X younger" thing they did with Sir Patrick in the X Men franchise... but then this might just be me with Sir Patrick, I know his face too well and it just doesn't... "look right" (?) when it's de-aged. I dunno. As I said, might just be me.

 

[Lynx]

I guess that we have to be very, very careful with this.

But if the technology can be more developed in coming years, then why not? There might be a day when we don't have Shatner, Stewart and many others of our favorites around and if it's possible to de-age actors to make thir characters become what they were in their heydays or if we can make animated movies or series with the characters looked as they did in the 90's, then why not?

It's at least better than those "reboots" with actors who hardly look like Kirk, Picard or any other favorite character and who can't act their way out of their own kitchen if required.

I hate "reboots"!

 

[Takeru]

No, if they want to use those characters again they should recast, it's not a big deal everyone can be replaced.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nope. Unless it's for a 2-second scene or to complete an ongoing story (although Rise of the Skywalker was incredibly awkward in the way everyone was obviously talking around whatever lines they had of Carrie Fisher) Just recast.

There's nothing a CG Nimoy can do better than a real-life Ethan Peck or Zachary Quinto.

 

[NCC-73515]

John and Sarah looked perfect in Dark Fate

 

[somebuddyX]

I think when they actors are alive it can be interesting to de-age but once they're dead, let it go. Recast, sure. The Kelvinverse crew were pretty good overall but Karl Urban was awesome as young Bones.

 

[Relayer1]

I think when they actors are alive it can be interesting to de-age but once they're dead, let it go. Recast, sure. The Kelvinverse crew were pretty good overall but Karl Urban was awesome as young Bones.

Pretty much.

Early de-aging was weird and it can still look 'off' if done cheaply. Top level it's pretty seamless now and can only get better - I like it. Using different actors then cg'ing them into a deceased actor doesn't seem so successful however. If they want to do Shatner Kirk they need to do it soon !

Recasting is interesting - I'm not at all impressed with most of the Kelvin recasts, but Quinto was good and Urban absolutely perfect. It's tricky and often doesn't work. It depends on the casting.

 

[NCC-73515]

Mount and Greenwood were great Pikes, even surpassing Hunter

 

[Qonundrum]

It's inevitable that the technology would get to this point. Even if Tarkin was moving with a very slight stutter (I was still thoroughly impressed) or if Leia and her inability to blink looked like she was stoned or high at the time, the fluidity and photorealism of the CGI was no less breathtaking. If they're true to the source material and concepts and mannerisms, this can expand a universe considerably. Tarkin was absolutely wonderful to see, was true to form, felt legitimate, and added much to "Rogue One" (yes, I've nitpicked and mewled - which isn't exactly a shock - but there's plenty to truly applaud and enjoy as well.)

Of course, do actors' visages become property of the studio and regardless if it's using CGI or digging up and light- and hue-matching old footage to re-purpose? Or still photos for promotionals or other things?

And let's face it: CGI allows more script creativity whereas grafting existing footage becomes a potentially big hindrance as altering a script to fit the previously shot material isn't easy, to say the least. I'd rather see the CGI and tell the story as intended for a character, as audiences want to see the characters first and foremost. It's a freedom that couldn't have been done before. Embrace it and make a home run with it. But embrace it to retcon and revise it? Not so much, that's far less creative than a reimagining/reboot with entirely new casts aping the scenes now altered.

 

[wayne66]

I would love to see it if they do it perfectly. I liked how they got Carrie Fischer in Episode 9 of Star Wars. I thought it worked really well. I would like to see TOS revived this way using the voice work of the original actors( who would get paid even if they are dead). Use the image of the actors from the original series and repurpose them. I do not know if it is viable, but I am open to the possibilities of it. They could always do a new version in animation as well.

 

[BillJ]

Not interested in people being de-aged via CGI. The past is the past, let it go.

 

[Mudd]

Yeah, it's bad practice.

 

[Ovation]

A brief flashback scene? Sure. A whole movie? No. Not really.

 

[Phil123]

De-aged (when done well) is fine, it's still the actor, it's essentially advanced make up. Resurrecting dead actors however, has never sat well with me. Those who own your "image rights" now can in no way know what your feelings about it would be.

 

[XCV330]

I don't like deaging actors and I abhor bringing back dead ones. I have had issues with necromancy since Natalie Cole decided to give her career a new lease on her dead dad's shoulders.

I'm not going to be extremist about de-aging actors: there are times when it has to be done, or when it is preferable for specific reasons, such as Data in Picard. Most of the time though, I think it is preferable to just hand the role over.

 

[guyute03]

I am only okay with this stuff if the actor has given permission to do this before their death. And I mean specifically the actor, not their "estate", not their family either.
Otherwise it is highly offensive to me.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm not going to be extremist about de-aging actors: there are times when it has to be done, or when it is preferable for specific reasons, such as Data in Picard. Most of the time though, I think it is preferable to just hand the role over.

De-ageing is fine for something like Picard, where it's all about nostalgia. But should they make a new Next Generation movie or series set in the 2260's, or a Data origin movie, I'd want all the roles recast.

 

[seigezunt]

If Rogue One (a film I otherwise adore) is the example, Hell No. The Leia animation was creepy as hell (they should have just gone with an actress that resembled her) and the Peter Cushing was a good example of, you might be able to make it look like the actor, but you can't make it *act* like the actor.

De-Aging looks creepy as well.

Better to just go for some old-fashioned animation with soundalikes.

 

[Sisko_is_my_captain]

Leia and Tarkin both dropped right into the uncanny valley for me. They look like animated corpses to me. Something in particular about the lips is disturbingly off.