The Disney Thread: For Everything Concerning the House of Mouse

ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

PatrThom said:
I really do think it's because if the studios go all-in on deepfakes like you suggest, the message that sends (real or imagined) is, "Henceforth we no longer need real live actors."
Click to expand...
But again, that isn't how it works. The minute they attempt it they would be sued by whatever actor they attempted to replicate without permission, whether prosthetic, makeup, cgi, or deepfake. Going back to the Crispin Glover lawsuit, Universal attempted to argue that the person in the movie was "George McFly" and not Crispin Glover, and thus attempting to replicate Crispin's face was perfectly fine. It never stuck, thus why Universal ultimately settled with Crispin for 700k dollars (his lawsuit asked for a million).

The fact actors are even more anal about "likeness rights" due to things like videos games and animation means it's unlikely a studio would be able to get away with it.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
This is something that we've been asking ourselves since Great Value Ben Affleck appeared in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
ScytheRexx said:
But again, that isn't how it works. The minute they attempt it they would be sued by whatever actor they attempted to replicate without permission, whether prosthetic, makeup, cgi, or deepfake. Going back to the Crispin Glover lawsuit, Universal attempted to argue that the person in the movie was "George McFly" and not Crispin Glover, and thus attempting to replicate Crispin's face was perfectly fine. It never stuck, thus why Universal ultimately settled with Crispin for 700k dollars (his lawsuit asked for a million).

The fact actors are even more anal about "likeness rights" due to things like videos games and animation means it's unlikely a studio would be able to get away with it.
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder if audiences would accept a live action movie made completely of artificial likenesses. Real actors performing but deepfaked to look like characters that Disney owns the likeness rights to.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

figmentPez said:
Makes me wonder if audiences would accept a live action movie made completely of artificial likenesses. Real actors performing but deepfaked to look like characters that Disney owns the likeness rights to.
Click to expand...
I was going to say it might be a little less cost effective to CGI / deepfake an entire live action movie, then then I remembered that Disney already sort of did something similar by making the new "live action" Lion King entirely CGI, and it made 1.6 billion dollars. So really, I don't know.

I mean, people actually think this would have made Solo better, so maybe people are warming up to this being possible in a few years.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Just to add on, even if they don't hype up the "copy paste one actors face onto another", the tech still would help out a lot, even when used with the same actor just to play with his age.


One more thing, but while looking up videos, of course youtube keeps showing me more, and I spotted this one, and I can't stop laughing.
 
Last edited:
Tress

Tress

ncts_dodge_man said:
No more Cara Dune going forward in the Mandalorian... Gina Carano not returning due to social media controversy.
Click to expand...
I’m all for free speech, but she just kept pushing and pushing. There is a point where Disney doesn’t want to be associated with someone who says messed up shit, like how the Nazis were just following the will of the people, and the real monsters of the Holocaust are liberals (and Democrats? Somehow?). It’s just too much.
 
Tinwhistler

Tinwhistler

Tress said:
I’m all for free speech, but she just kept pushing and pushing. There is a point where Disney doesn’t want to be associated with someone who says messed up shit, like how the Nazis were just following the will of the people, and the real monsters of the Holocaust are liberals (and Democrats? Somehow?). It’s just too much.
Click to expand...
Free speech doesn't mean free of consequences. She can say what she wants. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences to her actions. If I worked at taco bell at the register, and ranted to all the customers coming in that bill gates was putting microchips in the vaccine, I'd expect they'd fire me.
 
chris

chris

Tress said:
I’m all for free speech, but she just kept pushing and pushing. There is a point where Disney doesn’t want to be associated with someone who says messed up shit, like how the Nazis were just following the will of the people, and the real monsters of the Holocaust are liberals (and Democrats? Somehow?). It’s just too much.
Click to expand...
I haven't followed what was going on but that's really messed up.
 
ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

Disney was apparently planned on announcing her own spin-off show back in December but held off because of her posts.

All she had to do was keep her dumb opinions to herself and she would've been set for life.

It's kind of like Chris Pratt. He apparently also has...less than savor opinions about things. But he's smart enough to keep quiet about it.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

It just came out a few days ago that one of Pedro's sibling is trans, and has been closeted for awhile, with Pedro being their main support through the process. This might explain why there were so many rumors of Pedro being "difficult" on the set, because Gina Carano has been known to openly mock trans activists, including using mock pronouns not long after Pedro added his own pronouns to his twitter in a sign of solidarity with his sibling, so I can see him being pretty peeved at her about that, at least in a more private setting.

The comparing modern republicans to Jews during the Holocaust was just what finally broke the camels back. Not only did Disney drop her, but her acting agency also let her go.
 
HCGLNS

HCGLNS

I understand Disney's actions, but no one elses. Disney can no longer sell her effectively, so she has no use to them. But why does anyone care what kind of a person she is? Do her views matter to you? Why do they matter to you? Stop expecting perfection from strangers.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

HCGLNS said:
I understand Disney's actions, but no one elses. Disney can no longer sell her effectively, so she has no use to them. But why does anyone care what kind of a person she is? Do her views matter to you? Why do they matter to you? Stop expecting perfection from strangers.
Click to expand...
I personally don't care who she is, but words and actions matter. She is dealing with those consequences.

We kind of forget how much power celebrity has in shaping people. There is a reason Republicans worship the legacy of people like Reagan, and fanatically follow people like Trump. They were conservative celebrities first, politicians later. Celebrity can have a strong influence on our own views.
 
HCGLNS

HCGLNS

So is the problem not what she said, but that people would listen to her? Does Disney firing her change that? Wouldn't it be better to change her views?
 
Tinwhistler

Tinwhistler

1613064934704.png


To speak to HCGLNS' point, though: I don't give a shit about her as a person. If I were to meet her at a party, I'm sure that I'd find an excuse not to interact with her. But as a celebrity, those same views get amplified. I'm certainly happy when someone whose views I find abhorrent loses platforms from which they espouse those views.

If she hadn't gotten very popular on the Mandalorian show, there's a good chance that her views would be page 3 news.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
HCGLNS said:
So is the problem not what she said, but that people would listen to her? Does Disney firing her change that? Wouldn't it be better to change her views?
Click to expand...
Changing her views may not be a realistic goal. It would be nice if it were possible to change everyone's mind by some route, but some people just refuse any and all efforts to educate them.

Stop expecting perfection from strangers.
Click to expand...
We're orders of magnitude away from "perfection". She's a Q-Anon promoting, conspiracy theory touting, anti-science, anti-knowledge, loud mouthed bigot. Continuing to work with her normalizes her insane socio-political views. What she's promoting isn't just a mild disagreement, it's full-on antithetical to reality, and those beliefs have strong ties to violence against the minorities they denigrate. She's not just a kook promoting a fad diet, or selling pyramid power, she's advocating that entire classes of people have their rights taken away. Normalizing her views is normalizing violence against minorities.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

HCGLNS said:
So is the problem not what she said, but that people would listen to her? Does Disney firing her change that? Wouldn't it be better to change her views?
Click to expand...
You can't always change a person views, but sometimes when those views get overly destructive, the best thing you can do is remove their platform. The net got ten times better after Twitter finally banned Trump. Not perfect, but better, less vitriolic, because the figure-head of the damage is no longer pumping out new bullshit on a daily basis to rev people up. This is also how cults can often get broken up, remove the figure-head and prevent him from openly preaching his gospel to the congregation on a daily or weekly basis, and the followers start to drift away. Not always to a better option, but it shows how much a "head personality" needs to be the center point for such devotion to be maintained, whether that center is a shitty reality star or some invisible man in the sky that everyone else tells you exists.
 
HCGLNS

HCGLNS

What she is promoting isn't the problem, the fact that people are listening is the problem. The scope of what her opinion should have weight is small. On the issues she is discussing she has no weight at all. So how does society stop giving credibility to the undeserving?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top