Members quartermainefan Posted February 28, 2013 Members Share Posted February 28, 2013 The advances in CGI is amazing, and it makes you wonder if in a few years time we won't be seeing her and others star in new movies. It's not perfect yet, but getting there. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SFw8NjZF-Qk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alexisfan07 Posted February 28, 2013 Members Share Posted February 28, 2013 This is so freaky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted February 28, 2013 Members Share Posted February 28, 2013 Bizarre. She looks like a mix of Bambi and Lady Penelope from Thunderbirds. I hear they're doing something similar with Larry Hagman on Dallas, as they did with Livia Soprano. What's sad/crazy is that the porn world could start taking the images of celebs, altering their appearances ever so slightly, slapping fake new names on them, and exploiting them for profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 28, 2013 Members Share Posted February 28, 2013 I don't like this type of thing. I think it's disrespectful and bizarre. I will go as far as to say I will never buy anything from a company that does this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vee Posted February 28, 2013 Members Share Posted February 28, 2013 I think it actually looks fantastic, at least on YouTube and not on a larger screen. But I do think it's in very poor taste. I didn't mind that Funny Face commercial they did with her a while ago, but this is a bit much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KMan101 Posted February 28, 2013 Members Share Posted February 28, 2013 I don't really know what to think about this. Wow. I mean, it's awesome what they can do but ... first we have lifelike projections now this? Just bizarre. Wouldn't they have to get the approval to use her image though? I mean ... this does seem in poor taste. Creative but it's just weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ann_SS Posted February 28, 2013 Members Share Posted February 28, 2013 That is totally creepy and sick. The woman is dead. She cannot give or decline her consent to use her image in this way. It isn't like someone's descendants giving permission to use their music or book rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mr. Vixen Posted February 28, 2013 Members Share Posted February 28, 2013 I think it looks kind of fake, but I find it a bit creepy. Audrey is my favorite actress of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eric83 Posted February 28, 2013 Members Share Posted February 28, 2013 Wouldn't they have to pay her estate or something like that to use her image? I really don't understand the point either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JellicleCat Posted February 28, 2013 Members Share Posted February 28, 2013 Exactly! I wonder if her family has even been asked about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SFK Posted February 28, 2013 Members Share Posted February 28, 2013 Her estate had to have been contacted and it looks like they gave the go ahead. I remember being young at my grandparents' house and they were watching that final 20/20 interview she did shortly before she died. Since then, I've seen countless commercials and ads in Parade magazine for schlock bearing her image. She was a philanthropist, as was highlighted in that interview where she was helping children in Africa, IIRC. She may have left specific intsructions in her will about where and how profits off of her image and royalties could be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.fbb6aa067610794e36433d57928a2f42.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.