TV Discussion Deepfake, Respeecher, and the Recasting Debate

From Rogue One onwards, the question has frequently been raised of whether classic characters should be recast, or played by the same actors through the use of visual effects. This technology's use in television has meant that this discussion will likely come up again and again, which is why I have made this thread.

---

My stance is, that if a character will only be making brief appearances, then a digital face is fine so long as the dialogue is delivered by a real person. Respeecher should be limited to characters who are masked, droids, or in a hologram. If the character concerned is to be a lead or major supporting role, then recasting would be best.

 

I believed all along that a large part of making the anthology films was to test this very question. Deepfake with Rogue One, recast with Solo.
Problem is for LF, there was mixed reaction/results with both. Now they're caught in no-mans land trying to decide the best route moving forward. They're not going to make everyone happy either way, so best to either avoid the situation entirely, or go with what they think can get the best performance out of. I guess part of the fun will be to see what's decided.

 

So long as they get consent from the actor or actress when they are alive I think anything is fine. But getting that consent from that person before they die is key. Such as what they did with JEJ. Where he personally sold his voice rights to Vader. not his estate after he passes.

 

showrunners should never fear fan backlash from recasting. Recast. Move on, or our children's children will just be watching some abhorrent mutation between acting and technology that sucks the soul out of the entire industry.

 

Luke and Leia are important characters, it is limiting to reduce their screentime to a bunch of minutes because of the intrinsic constraints of cgi scenes.
Breaking the tabu and recasting allows for more freedom to writers to use them whenever needed.

 

That’s why there’s animation.

 

One thing does not exclude the other, and besides many people are only interested in live action, casual viewers and adults in particular.

 

Recasting should be the default. I can kind of understand why Luke was deepfaked in The Mandalorian Season 2. But The Book of Boba Fett? I think it was overkill. He got about 5 minutes of screentime and a good amount of dialogue and gestures. Sebastian Stan (slightly de-aged with makeup or CGI) or Graham Hamilton (Hamill's double) without CGI to mimic younger Mark would've been fine (and cheaper).
I was fine with the use of it for younger Leia in RO and IX. Same with Luke in Mand Season 2 and IX. I also think the respeecher used with JEJ's voice in Obi-Wan Kenobi was great.
Other than that, most of it has been overkill. Tarkin is too uncanny in RO and the effect is going to age like milk (some will argue it already has). Wayne Pygram (Tarkin in III) with some makeup would've more than sufficed for RO.
Deepfaking Harrison Ford in Solo would've been a disaster, they dodged a bullet. Same with deepfaking Billy Dee Williams in that movie.

 

When we see a white woman with brown hair and a snarky attitude, and people calling her Leia, we see Leia.

Our brain is capable of that kind of abstraction. Maybe it's not immediate -perhaps it can feel weird the first 10 seconds- but then I assure that you'll just see Leia as if the character had always been played by that actress.

As a matter of fact, it would actually be exciting to see what actors replace Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher and whether they work for us or not. Usually, there is some excitement in the fandom of other franchises about new actors, for example for James Bond or other iconic characters.

I don't get why SW should be different in that regard. I surely loved Donald Glover as Lando. If it worked for Lando, it can work for any other character.

 

Recasting is fine IMHO so long as they put the effort in to find and cast someone who looks somewhat like the original. I've seen some lazy recastings over the years where the new actor looks nothing like the old.

 

I love Donald Glover as Lando too and Alden as Han. But those are set before the first chronological appearance of Billy Dee and Harrison as those characters.

 

How many years before? Let's assume it's about 10 years.
Check out a picture of yourself when you were in your 20s and, assuming you're old enough, when you were in your 30s. I don't know you but most likely you'll see that you haven't changed that much, or at the very least you don't look as different in the two pictures as AE differs from HF and DG differs from BD. From how the actors look like, it's obvious that they're not the same persons before and after 10 years, but thankfully we are able to just go with it because it doesn't really matter, and because our brain is willing to fall for the illusion, more or less like we can somehow bypass the fact that Temuera Morrison and Hayden Christensen look older than the age their characters are supposed to have when they appear.

 

I’ve already stated my opinion about this. I’m perfectly willing to accept the actors looking a little different when they’re playing the characters at earlier points in their lives. I simply do not what another actor playing Luke Skywalker in between any of Mark Hamill’s appearances. Or any of the other characters.

 

What about Mark's face with someone else's voice? His voice certainly changes between VI and VII, so another actor in between seems like it'd work there.

 

If we’re talking animation then I’m perfectly fine with another actor voicing Luke. If we’re talking live action then isn’t that what Respeecher is for?

 

It is, but I found it way too unconvincing in BoBF. For some reason Vader worked far better. Probably a combination of him being masked, and there likely being far more "angry Vader" material to draw from compared to "serene Luke".

Respeecher should certainly be considered for each case, but they should be prepared to use a sound-alike instead when needed.

 

I don't have anything against CG. I also don't have anything against recasting. Why not both? Generally though I agree with @Darth Chiznuk that we shouldn't end up with a timeline where a character's looks jump back and forth between actors. (Animation's fine though, a certain amount of stylization in animation is part of the artform.)

It's interesting that deepfake technology is still in its infancy. I for one am excited to see how far they can go with it. Bring on more CG Luke.

 

I said in the other thread that I'm equally fine with recasting or deepfake. Whatever works best in a particular situation is the right approach.

As for moralistic reactions to technology, this is a tired song. Computer generation imagery and deepfake imagery are just new forms of animation. One might not like them, but the reason to dislike them isn't that they aren't animation.

The moralizing is understandable, but also reactionary -- it says more about someone's beliefs than the morality of the technology itself. Is there something immoral about a CG alien? Are practical FX Wookies unethical? If not, why a CG/DF human?

All technology can be used for immoral ends; that's not an argument against the technology. It's the immoral ends that need regulation; not the purpose of entertainment.

People should be more openminded about technology in narrative. However, if people create a deepfake dictator president, they should be arrested.

Similarly, we don't want to ban all guns, but semi-automatics should not be available to regular citizens (they can be legal, however, for certain experts or professions). It's not the technology but whether we regulate its use reasonably or not.

 

It's not so much about morality, and more about how it feels to watch those scenes.

CG aliens are also not my cup of tea, but in that case at least they can argue that the alternatives (costumes/make up/puppets) would be challenging, whereas for humans the issue is that they are spending a lot of money and energies just to come up with something that looks much worse than the more natural solution.

 

From a purely aesthetical point of view, I am fine with both choices (depending on the context). However, acting is a very difficult and generally unrewarding profession, so for that reason I favor recasting as it gives more actors genuine work opportunities.

 

One might say the same thing about animators. Animation is a very difficult and unrewarding profession, and deepfake gives more animators genuine work opportunities.

 

It depends on how the character is going to be used. If they're going to be a main character in the story, it makes more sense to recast. But if their role is closer to a cameo, I would be fine with deep fakes. I also believe that deepfakes can be used tastefully after the passing of an actor.

 

That's also true, but I still think that the percentage of actors who find work is lower compared with animators (although successful actors are obviously better paid). You can see in the credits that the number of actors compared with the special effects people is much lower. And also, acting is traditionally a niche for actors, so they might have some legacy claims on it. But you are right, this is a difficult issue to decide from a moral standpoint.

 

There’s still an element of acting to the performance even if it’s just for the mo-cap. There’s still an actor behind all that CGI wizardry so an actor is still being employed.

 

I truly want to see a Show with Luke Han and Leia but with Real Actors