We’ve now seen Robert Downey Jr. and Michael Douglas get reverted to a much younger and very believable versions of themselves. We’ve even seen a young Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator Genisys. But the most recent and possibly pinnacle of use of this technology was recently seen in Rogue One: a Star Wars Story where Peter Cushing (who passed away in 1994) “reprised” his role as Moff Tarkin. What could the ease of use of this mean for the future of cinematic storytelling? Is this a line we should continue to cross? And if so, how far should we go?

It has been well publicized that Peter Cushing’s image was used as noted with the approval of his family/estate. But it’s worth noting that he received no credit in the film, because technically it was a CGI mask over Guy Henry’s motion-captured performance. Think about that for a second. Essentially it seems as if this is viewed as no different than any of the CGI creatures used in a film. Just in this case, this “creation” happens to look like an actual person.

My intent is not to argue about how life-like this depiction looked. Some have complained it was fake looking, but in my view I couldn’t tell it was fake and I think people will always find reasons to complain. But again my concern here is not on the quality (which with any technology will only get better), but with the overall ramifications of such use, where Hollywood might opt to go with it, and what the ethical questions may be.

So let’s just start off with the elephant in the room: Carrie Fisher. Having just recently passed away as we are in the middle of episodes 7-9 of the Star Wars saga (for those unaware of the current status of things Fisher had finished filming her scenes for episode 8, but was supposed to have a bigger role in 9 which hasn’t entered production yet), discussions have begun on how to handle this loss. Allegedly there are two key scenes that have been noted: a reunion with her brother Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), and a confrontation with her Son Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). Which films those scenes were in has yet to be revealed. But as you read this LucasFilm executives are meeting to discuss the fate of the character and how Fisher’s passing affects it.

So the question is should they use a CGI Carrie Fisher in episode 9? A couple of years ago the question instead would have been do you recast Princess Leia, to which most people would say no because of factors like she’s been the character in four films already, there is a 40 year history with the character, etc. I get that. I do.

But the other option is to kill her off – most likely off-screen – either at the end of 8 or the beginning of 9? Is that really the right legacy for the character? Again, questions I’m not sure I’m ready to answer in this article, but this is the rock and hard place we find ourselves in.

And the last question I want to put out there is this: is there anything to stop a film company from using such a likeness regardless of permission from the actor or their estate? Let’s say Marvel wants Iron Man in a scene in a future Marvel film, but Robert Downey Jr. is unavailable (or maybe retired as Tony Stark). What can Marvel do? Would anyone fault them if the Iron Man CG suit we’ve seen in so many movies showed up blasted a couple bad guys and flew away? It’s Marvel’s character that they fully own the rights to – they can do that. Now take it a small step forward, they lift audio from a previous film and use that for a line for Stark to say in the film. Again, they own the films, it’s potentially within their rights to do that. Or they could get a separate actor to do an RDJ impression and say the line – again within their rights.

Now the last step: he opens the helmet for a second and it’s RDJ’s face (or is it?). Funny little thing is when actors do films like the Marvel Films, Star Wars, DC films basically anything where they might be selling toys for, the actors sign away their likeness. The studio own their likeness as it pertains to the character. This way they aren’t paying them for every figure made with their likeness. Depending on the language of such contracts, is it far-fetched to think it could be stretched to apply to such uses as well?

This is something that goes back to the 89 Batman and has a fairly long and colorful back story, and you should look into it sometime. But let’s just say movie studios are very careful about retaining the actor’s likeness when it pertains to the character they are portraying. Because the character is owned by the studio, not the actor. So again since the studios own the rights to what the characters look like, they are within their rights to use a CGI Image of a character, even of the caliber of Carrie Fisher, if they need to finish a film.

So I leave you to think about that. Where does the ethical line fall? Will we get to the point where films are made using the image of deceased characters without the family’s permissions? Is that inevitable? Heck, Facebook has the right to use images you post to FB in advertisements without your explicit consent. We might already be there. I don’t know. Only time will tell.