Of course you could just recast the role but then the fanboys would have a meltdown, so it is kind of lose-lose

I read this as "prepare for even more changes when Star Wars goes 3D".

What the point of animating dead actors through a computer? Its not like you're going to get the same input or performance you would if the actor was alive. You're basically just creating a puppet out of somebody's corpse. Plus there's the moral issue of using somebody's likeness when they don't have the ability to consent... because they're wormfood. There is so much wrong with it on every level I don't understand why you would have to absolutely use dead actors. Just be creative and create your own characters. Maybe have them act like your favorite actors of the past as an homage but don't do something as creepy as digging up their corpse (almost literally) and parading it around.

How distasteful.

I guess it's not as disgusting as seeing Steve McQueen step out of the modern Mustang to get people to buy it. Or as distasteful as having your dead performer dance with a vacuum cleaner.

this is what is going to happen.

I WISH they would just remaster the old one's with their original special effects and stuff... but that won't happen.

I do like it when he FIXES things. Like, the emperor in Empire Strikes Back replacing it with Ian McDiarmid ... or making the Rancor look nearly real. and fixing all the special effects artifacts from the 70s without actually replacing them.

What I DON'T like are changing what characters do or what happens (see Han leaning, Sarlacc beak, and Jaba Dancers), or trying to tie it into the prequels. Like popping Hayden Christensen in at the end of Jedi.

I don't know if anyone noticed, but he still made no attempt to remove the clerical errors that arise from the prequels, he just haphazardly linked them together further with CGI. But, I guess the upside is he didn't retconn a bunch of stuff by changing dialog in the first three movies.

I guess the only upside to his endless Star Wars tinkering is that once he starts tinkering with the prequels ... maybe he'll digitally recreate Anakin's performance and make it watchable (doubt it) ... or cut all that shit out about Meticlorians. Also, adding steam vapor and sizzling sounds when rain hits the light saber on Camino would be nice.

Oh god, don't you start me on that!

I doubt he'd tinker with the prequels though. He had full creative control over those movies and any revision would mean he was wrong... and I don't think George Lucas has the berries to admit he was wrong. Hes far more likely to mold the original movies in his own image even more.

Or, I think he's going for an Episode 7 maybe? Luke's kid and Jar Jar Binks's grandson go on wacky a deep space adventure with a couple "Snarf" type characters played by an animated Orson Welles and James Caan (hence the reason he's buying dead actor's rights) to provide comedic relief. The gang runs into trouble when their spaceship gets a flat tire and they have to land on a random planet only to discover the ghost of Darth Vader is haunting it. Luckily, the gang finds out the whole thing was a hoax by crazy old man Gumpford to scare people away from his precious mineral deposits, which turn out to be unobtainium and BAM! Avatar crossover! Lucas will make billions! Genius I say! Genius!

They've already been tinkering with them for years. It's the reason they haven't released a prequel trilogy box set. They've stated on numerous occasions that once that box set comes out they'll release a 6 movie set at the same time.

I'm not sure all the changes they're making, but one they're making (and have been for at least a year) is they're replacing Yoda in Phantam Menace with CGI yoda from the latter two prequels (they also made a big point that they'll never replace the puppets from the original three movies)

So, yes, they are tinkering with them already.

Well shave my legs and call me grandpa, that Lucas is one crazy bastard. Although, that new Yoda puppet was terrible looking, but the CGI Yoda was worse looking. I don't think they realize how jarring CGI can be. That CGI Jabba in that added scene in A New Hope is one of the most appalling things I've ever seen. It just did not belong, along with all that other stuff they threw in.

But I thought they release a prequel trilogy box set already, I've seen it on Amazon and Best Buy.

I can take some peace in the face they are "promising" not to touch the original puppet Yoda from V and VI

lets hope they keep that promise

Oh that's right. That's really just a collection set though. It came out at a budget price and it's, literally, just the DVDs that were already released.

I was speaking of a set like this:


And, I imagine they're waiting for the BluRay release to do it similar.

TO NOTE: Prepare yourself because they fully intend (and tried to do it about five years ago) to release a 3D version of the original three flicks. They put it on hold because there weren't enough 3D capable theaters, but, as far as I know it's back on. I don't think it's a new cut or anything (it's likely the 2007 cuts)

The 1997 version with the CG hut is, at least, more jarring than the 2007 version. And I will give props that most of the CGI characters in the prequel movies looked very good. Yoda seemed to be the main exception, really. Maybe it's because for a 3D animator it's too tempting to move the camera around in virtual space ... it really destroys the authenticness of the shot. I think that's really more it than anything else. At least that's what I've noticed from the MANY digital effects I've seen. (There's a reason why Cloverfield and District 9 look so convincing and I don't think it's because of the quality of CGI) When they start going all Michael Bay with the camera movements it kills the suspension and becomes obvious CG work.

Back to the original topic:

It just depends on where you draw the line as the line is pretty blurred when it comes to this sort of thing. The whole digitally inserting a dead person into a movie and put words in their mouth has been happening as early as 1994. Granted, not to this extreme, but remember when Forrest Gump met Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon? While they did incorporate actual footage of these presidents, they did digitally insert Tom Hanks shaking their hands and giving the Presidents new dialogue.

I know this is not to the extreme that Link brought up, but I think this is where the discussion needs to be. Where is the line drawn? Because many people enjoyed these scenes in Forrest Gump. What if an actor is digitally inserted in a movie for the sake of a cameo? Like say a movie takes place in the 1950's and the character meets the actor Humphrey Bogart? They could either get an actor who looks like Bogart, or digitally insert his likeness into the movie. Would that be okay? Or has the line already been crossed?

That scenario brings up another question...is the line crossed when the dead actor is merely a cameo appearance as him/herself or is the line crossed when the dead actor is playing a cameo minor role?

Let's say they get around to making that Preacher movie (or TV series). For those that know the comic, the main character often times has hallucinations of John Wayne giving him pep talks. Would it be out of line digitally inserting him in the movie for the sake of realism?

And once again, another question: Is the line crossed if the actor has been dead a long time and/or hasn't been prevalent in modern cinema (example: John Wayne) or is the line crossed no matter when they died and/or last performed?

It all really depends on what exactly he wants to do with these actors. Last I checked he still would have to get the remaining family's consent and lay out to them how he is going to use said likeness. So for example, let's say Lucas wants to add more to the Obi-Wan/Vader fight from A New Hope. He's going to have to get in touch with Alec Guinness' family and lay out to them the manner in which he wants to portray him. If they shoot it down he can't do it. If they are unhappy with the end result it could lead to a legal issue. While not exactly the same scenario you can look at how both Guitar Hero World Tour and The Beatles Rock Band were handled: a lot of work and care went into the Beatles game with input from Paul and Ringo as well as the surviving members of the families of John Lennon and George Harrison and it turned out to be a great finished product that respectfully handled John Lennon and George Harrison. And then on the opposite end of the spectrum you've got Courtney Love, Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic all upset about how haphazardly Kurt Cobain's likeness was used.

Morally though I think its one really big grey area. If the likeness of someone who's dead is used to shill for some product they had no investment prior to their death 9 times out of 10 I'd probably say its distasteful. When its done in such a way that can add to the production as a whole and introduce younger audiences to an actor who has passed's body of work I don't see anything wrong with that. Anything else would have to be a "case by case" kind of situation.