Yet another actors-oppose-CGI thread, James Dean edition
Diomede
Posts: 15,388
There have been a couple of threads about CGI replacing actors. Some actors react to casting of "James Dean" in film, Finding Jack.
https://pagesix.com/2019/11/09/celebs-come-out-against-cgi-casting-of-james-dean-in-new-film/
Excerpt
James Dean is set to star in upcoming Vietnam-era drama “Finding Jack,” despite the fact that the iconic actor died over six decades ago.
The production company behind the movie, Magic City Films, has obtained rights to Dean’s image via his estate. Having died in a car crash in 1955, the company will recreate the star using CGI technology, including actual footage and photos of the “Rebel Without a Cause” actor, The Hollywood Reporter confirms.
Several big names have come out against the move, including Captain America himself, Chris Evans, who tweeted, “I’m sure he’d be thrilled” with an eye-rolling emoji. He went on, “This is awful. Maybe we can get a computer to paint us a new Picasso. Or write a couple new John Lennon tunes. The complete lack of understanding here is shameful.”
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
its like those horseless carriages
and ATM machines
and didn't photography and film replace art and live theatre ......
Maybe older actors can star as their younger selves, without all the hassle.
Brigitte Bardot could come out of retirement without having to face the paparazzi.
I'm for Brigitte!
I can understand these reactions. It's very hard to find out one is easily to be replaced by a machine... oh.. wait... happens all the time in all different businisses. And - wow - when there's a robot serving your dinner all people just go "wow" and are delighted. But sure, art must be different. Else we would have pictures painted by apes or elephants... oh.. wait... we got those already, and people were delighted...
On a more serious note, having Captain America speak out against this seems a bit weird, considering that he's doing much of his acting with 3d figures in about every Marvel movie he made.
While I can see the potential place of using CGI technology to have an actor resemble a historical character they're playing, it feels weird to me to use it in other cases.
It has had its uses in digitally de-aging actors or if the original actor for a role is no longer available, but at the same time, these roles are often fantastic opportunities for other actors.
And in a case like this... well, is there any concrete reason it needs to be James Dean in this role? It's not actually supposed to be James Dean, and it's not a character he previously played (he died a month before the Vietnam War started). In doing this, they're basically saying that "No-one alive today could acceptably play this role".
And if they need to rely on such specific CGI to actually make the film pass the mark and be worth watching, then I strongly advise that everyone gives it a miss. Films that rely too much on CGI are never good.
Funny thing is that some other actor is going to have to play James Dean, because that CG Dean isn't going to animate and voice himself. What the hell...
I feel like the complaints are less around the idea that they're using CGI for actors that's the problem, as it is that they're pulling in an actor who has no say in his image being used to represent a completely new film that he had no prior ties to.
That his family did give permission helps, but the question does go on to, why not create an entirely new person if they're going to go the CGI route, or simply hire another actor since it's supposed to be a live action film? There are a lot of great actors out there, and if they specifically wanted to emulate James Dean, they could have had actors study and emulate what made him so popular in film. Those doing the CGI and the actor doing the voice will already have to do this if they want to make it feel accurate.
I agree that using CGI only to better resemble a person for historic purposes would make sense, or to better portray a character by aging them up or down, or in some cases (with permission from the family and/or previously-written contract from the actor in question) to finish completing a role when an actor passes away before the intended role was completed.
Granted, I might change my opinions once more information comes to light, but those are my current thoughts.
Well for one thing you don't have to tip them (I assume).
It's a gimmick to get attention and create more profit in an pop culture that elevates the famous in idolatry; why they even call them big screen idols so there ain't no argument about it. Still, I think it would be sort of neat to see but from a technical perspective not because I've ever seen a James Dean movie as I haven't. Of course never knowing James Dean in person I doubt that I'd be able to judge how good a job they did creating a CGI James Dean but you know it's going to be excessively analyzed yeah or nay. We've already started and the movie hasn't even been released.
No, people that work in factories are not promoted as public idols that anyone would care one way or the other.
Excellent points.
Your statements above are at odds with each other. I totally agree with your comment in yellow. But the one in orange is an overgeneralization that cannot be demonstrated to be always true. Although I would agree that CGI cannot guarantee that a film will be good, there's no reason to autoatically dismiss it either. A film heavy in CGI isn't necessarily going to be good or bad. All of the elements of good storytelling need to be there. Interesting characters, good plot, and so forth. I would also argue that in general, there should be a good sound track too.
Seriously, look at the original Tron. Incredibles, Toy Story 1 thru 85, and many live action films. Kubo and The Two Strings, oh my God what an amazing story! Live action or not, it doesn't matter. Lego figures, stop-motion clay figures, or Origami-inspired people, places, and things, this is just about all CGI these days (Kubo an exception; not really "Cgi", per se, although they did get very fancy with their filming).
Some films are so loaded with CGI that I think I can taste the meshes in my popcorn and the UV maps in my nachos! But the stories can be quite good, and that's what I'm looking for. My siblings loved Alita when we saw it together just recently. Who knew it was a comic? That movie is just about ALL CGI in one way or another.
So to bring this tugboat home...what was the original complaint? Is it that the dead are offended that they won't be able to find any more leading roles in Hollywood with so much CGI? Cry me a river. Besides that, Hollywood's lazy storytelling has so many characters coming back from the dead, you'd think that the dearly departed are more busy now than ever! I mean, if the fictional characters such as Chucky, that pirate, Superman, that little Gelfling girl in the original Dark Crystal, half the original and Next Generation Star Trek TV show characters, and even "My Mother the Car" did it! Oh yeah, and then there's the Crow, Goldie Hawn, Meryl Streep, and Elvis too!
It was only ever a matter of time before dead actors started getting involved in this gig too, amiright?
It's also no wonder that we're all becoming preppers for the zombie apocalypse!
It is inevitable. And frankly I'm sort of glad.
I don't really oppose using CGI characters as such, but I am concerned about using the image of a person who canot consent to it. How would you feel if you knew that after your death, your image would be used in a movie you disagreed with? It's a slippery slope.
I'd say that while subjective, it is actually always true, as the phrasing is "rely too much on CGI". While each individual will have their own opinions of when "too much" is "too much", it's not a particularly grand claim to say that if a film relies too much on any one aspect, there is a point at which, no matter how good that aspect is, anyone would concede that it does not make up for the film's other flaws and the overall product is bad.
And if they're going effectively claim that the film has to have James Dean in a particular role and they can't accept anyone else (a statement they're backing up by spending a very large amount of money on CGI), then while it's most likely that they're completely mistaken and the film would have been fine with any competent heart-throb actor, it isn't exactly exuding a tone of confidence about the film being able to stand on its other merits.
But should they be correct and the film does have to have James Dean... well... in that case, with the technology in its not exactly perfect state, they're pretty much setting themselves up for failure anyway. These digital resurrections are often criticised for their realism, so they're not likely to get something entirely indistinguishable from James Dean.
cgi for removal of danger,or improve stunts, yes
to place a person in a film? no.
real actors are not cartoons.
I have a feeling they're going to find an actor that looks like James Dean, but will only replace his face with CGI, not his entire body.
I think a real actor's concern might be, if their performance was worthy enough to win an award, who gets the Oscar? lol.
I'm excited by the prospect that beloved actors need never "die" and can come back to the screen. Of course whoever is running the CGI and doing the "acting" will have big shoes/expectations to fill. In any event, it'll be interesting to see where this all goes, that's for sure.
....all I can say, given the amount that studios will save by using CGI over live actors and physical locations/sets/models/effects, the price at the box office better come down from where it is.
I'm thinking that more than anything, the people who make and pay to have the movies made are seeing they can make things much cheaper with CGI than hiring an A lister and that actors are worried they'll be outbid by those deceased actors who's families likely won't require nearly as much money as the aforementioned A lister ;) In today's age of deep fakes, they don't need voices OR the faces anymore. I'm sure this hasn't been lost on the Hollyweird population.
It's always the bottom line.
Laurie
I had the same sort of idea for a movie, but it was for a movie starring Humphrey Bogart... I probably shouldn't have gone the zombie route though... also it's really hard to reanimate cremated remains.
maybe it's the idea that being cgi they can do/have whatever they want with the actor without their consent or make them out to be something completely different as in their identity reputation, even nude and or sex scenes. Been plenty of cases where celebs photos/image has been used without permission to sell/endorse various things including phone sex ads. t is cool can bring people back for movie series and such and yeah we like doing renders of them in stories or whatever but like everything can be abused and used for all kinds of things. They have done this already for a few commercials like using John Wayne
If i am dead it doesn't matter to me. The only slippery slope i would worry about is sliding on the one I am on into the next casket
I don't know...ask Arya Stark
LOL, it has begun.
It was only a matter of time. I bet James Dean's likeness is cheaper than Tom Cruise, too. Plus this movie is going to get all kinds of press for this, whether it is good or bad, movie goers are going to at least know about this movie. I wonder how long it will be before Marilyn Monroe gets a new movie.
Now we are just one step closer to the master plan of having Nicholas Cage starring in everything...ever. *Cue maniacal laughter
Its only a gimmick at this point
they are not doing actors out of a job as they could just hire unkowns for much less and use awesome makeup and procthetics too.
People will watch it because its a gimmick then get bored and move on.
What is of concern ito big name actors is they are realising there are threats to their box office pull and protest whether it be CGI or foreign actors or people who resemble them too much.
Some producers insist on unknowns for this reason and actually rely on the story and production to see them through.
Not saying a big name actor isn't a box office draw, we know they are and companies will pay them because they will recoup the cost but they are just another gimmick too when you come down to it so of course they see reanimating dead actors as a threat.
...still not worth 12 - 16 USD for about 120 - 140 min of time (plus10 - 15 min of adverts prior to the previews before the actual feature itself).
Actors will never be put out of a job, but I think this will in time knock them down a couple pegs. Also, Chris Evans might change his tune in 30 years when they can use his younger self to play a role he can no longer play at his age. Its only gross to some people because James Dean is dead, and has no say in the matter. There is also the chance people will reject it if they think this in poor taste. If they use actors who are alive but past their prime, those actors will be much more willing...after all, they can still get work this way when they probably would otherwise only get calls for Hallmark movies or nothing at all. I can imagine a number of washed up 80's stars would happily do this.
Technology is always changing, and it will only get better. And it will get better pretty fast.
The possibilities are there. What if they made a new Star Trek movie with the original cast in their prime? Or TNG, where at least most of the cast is still alive? I bet most of them would be on board with that idea, too. Then they could make a prequel series with Picard, that actually stars Patrick Stewart.
I can see scifi fans being more open to the idea in general, as the very idea of this was science fiction in years past. And scifi has already attempted this several times with Terminator and Tron and plenty of others.
So the first way this gets accepted is through youthful versions of older actors. And as I mentioned before, I am sure that future Hollywood contracts, and probably some already do, will have clauses for rights to that actor's likeness even beyond death. Putting in the contract that way will help this along, as having the actors approval before they die will help people to accept it more.
There is a video game that just came out that casts Linsdey Wagner as her younger self. Which isn't new to games, really, they've done things like this before, too. Additionally, the director of this game has openly expressed his desire to make a film. I can totally picture him doing something like this in a movie as well. Also, she sort of looks like a Daz character here, LOL.
For those that are claiming James Dean can't consent that his image is used in a new movie because he's dead, well his last movie wasn't released until after he was dead and he got not say as to whether of not his various scenes in the film were edited, spliced, cut, and so on and so forth.
And what actors do get to choose which of their scenes make the cut, get spliced, get edited or even decided they were going to get invited to consider being in the movie to begin with? The cases that you read about that do get to only get to because the mass media industry has promoted them as idols and so those types are given more of those choices. Very few & far in between those are. For most of those actors and other workers though it's a job, they get hired, and do the job they are told to do. It goes to show the extent that some of those folk are idolized that some people think actors should have a say in changing which is another's movie and art completely. Those paying for the production don't have to listen to a single suggestion from any actor or whether or not to leave that actor's work completely on the cutting room floor or not.
The estate of James Dean and the makers of that movie are completely within their legal rights and there is no question about it if you read the article; a CGI version of James Dean will be in that movie.
And with that they will feed his voice to a computer program that can create a pretty good artificial likeness of his voice and his body language to a film motion capture program that will be turned into 'aniBlocks' so to speak and then a professional animator will integrate and extend those where needed for the part to be completed. It should be interesting to see the results and if they actually tell how they did achieve the CGI they create.
If the James Dean estate and the studio came to an agreement then they are making the movie.
I personally think it's very cool! Just like the 3D supermodel thing. As long as there is some sort of disclaimer that the actor/model is not actually a real person I'm cool with it and excited to see where art combined with technology takes us!