Film Theory: Disney's Secret Archive of Dead Actors
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 апр 2022
- Don't miss a Film Theory! ► bit.ly/1dI8VBH
Today we are diving back into the question, "Who owns your face when you are dead?" Deepfakes have made that a BIG question, one that needed more than just one episode. So here is a new question for you: if you could own the image of a dead actor, would you? Is it okay for you to use that likeness in movies forever? Let's talk.
Get your Theory Wear! ► theorywear.com/
Don't miss a Film Theory! ► bit.ly/1dI8VBH
Need Royalty Free Music for your Content? Try Epidemic Sound.
Get Your 30 Day Free Trial Now ► share.epidemicsound.com/TheFil...
MORE FILM THEORIES
Rick's True CRIME! | Rick and Morty ►► bit.ly/2MVhP2W
Will MORTY KILL RICK?! ►► bit.ly/2qKFFFV
How PICKLE RICK Functions! ►►► bit.ly/2JvU4fT
Blair Witch's SECRET DANGER! ► bit.ly/2qhmv7a
Ariel & Hercules Are RELATED?! ► bit.ly/32WnVWi
Credits:
Writers: Matthew Patrick and Bob Chipman
Editors: Alex "Sedge" Sedgwick, Tyler Mascola, Danial "BanditRants" Keristoufi, and Forrest Lee
Assistant Editor: Caitie Turner (viridianrosette)
Sound Editor: Yosi Berman
#Disney #StarWars #TheMandalorian #StanLee #Deepfake #Deepfakes #Theory #FilmTheory #Matpat #Trailer 
Кино
I love how Matt just took it as a personal quest to destroy Disney’s reputation (and rightfully so).
MatPat isn't destroying Disney's reputation, THEY are, with their total lack of ethics & morals. He's just shedding light on their BS.
I think we should ALL strive to destroy Disney’s reputation
@@Animebryan2 Yes, he just expose them
@@user-ps2sg8qr2k I like your pfp
@@Animebryan2 Yup, he exposes that rotten mouse for the stinky lil rat it is!
It's literally disgusting how this could be used. If any actor decides they're cool with it, that's their business, but I just know there's gonna be a loophole someone abuses.
They won't care. Disney breached it’s contract with Robin Williams in the 90's for advertisement. That's why he didn't voice the Genie in the 2nd Aladdin movie. The guy was alive then, so imagine what they will do when an actor is dead
even if they're ok with it, they could always change their mind later and be stuck in a contract or something. gross and wrong all around
They're better off dead than alive to exploit
It’s a huge violation of consent. Not to mention tarnishing history. If whatever they release with a dead celebrity blows up negatively, people who never even knew them would only know them from that. Even for existing fans, seeing someone say or do something terrible will ruin anything involving that celebrity, even if you know it’s fake. We’ll always have that feeling and memory tied to them.
EXACTLY
This is SO TRUE. I never even thought about that!
I love the fact MatPat is trying to singlehandedly destroy Disney and pull back the vial on their lies. It just makes me love him and his videos more. I detest Disney.
Disney deserves to live.
It’s a strange world we live in that you need to ask someone “Would you be okay with people using your face and voice to make money after your death?”
yep
yeah. I mean, I'm an actor and I think its pretty weird to be using other actors faces long after their dead.
@@projekttaku1 Really?! Pls notice me!
@@RainierFajardoProduction oh, um, hi I guess.
It’s such a weird concept. You would think you control your own likeness, and I guess you technically do. Once you become a character like that, it’s not “your likeness” I suppose, to simplify the explanation. It’s the likeness of (insert character name here) as played by (actor).
It reminds me of one of his videos about copyright law, where no one has the right to post certain fanart pictures since no one owns all of the material/characters involved. This feels similar, neither side should really have absolute control.
“That is a hologram of Will Smith’s career, it just died”
When even MatPat makes joins in on the Will Smith roasting. He really turned himself into a meme permanently with that slap.
lol
Keep your comment out of my f*** comment section!
dont read my name!😐
Boo
@@deez6687 💀
This is actually a scary concept - the idea that someone can use your face and your voice on screen, but you’ve been dead for years.
This video made me think of my great-grandparents. They refused to take pictures because they believed it took the person’s soul out of their body.
In this case, the soul is being kept in the mortal realm by technology
Were your grandparents Native American may I ask? I know some Native American tribes have this belief
Replying cuz I’m interested in the answr
@@lavenderhuman no, they were Korean. My grandma was their second youngest and I think she was born around the 1940s-50s.
Even my grandma is pretty superstitious about a lot of things
@StrastTheFox well yeah in retrospect, but if you’d never seen a camera in your life and you come across one of those old ones with huge lenses, it would look a bit alien no?
Like, look at how dogs react to big lenses on cameras. They don’t understand what it is and are often scared.
@@MikaelaKMajorHistory so your comparing your great grandparents to dogs?
Personally, I think that it’s ok if the actor or actress says they are ok with it. I just feel bad for the families involved. Imagine seeing your loved one being used like a puppet.
TBH I think this is downright unethical since this is a person being used as property.
Agreed. Not many that get to say that before perishing though.
But even if, it’s still imo disgust that they can but any words in your mouth, which might tarnish the reputation of the person
@@SergioLeonardoCornejo well if their fine with being used as property then its fine
A dead person also cant turn down a bad movie.
Yeah, for lets say Stan Lee, im fine with him being added to marvel movies because he very clearly would have liked that, but the difference with that vs say a dead matpat advertising diet coke is just a friendly nod vs the other is profiting off them. Yes both support the product and its there correct image, but there is a agenda behind one vs genuine good will.
Robin Williams' children suing everyone that even think about using their Dad's likeness (without their signed permission) is actually worth a read/RUclips videos. They are going all out (with a full legal team) to honor their Dads wishes for him to never advertise any product anything after his death.
Up!
As they should. Good for them.
That's good to hear
He must have been an unusually good father for a celebrity, to inspire such appropriate respect-- the more typical process is "he's dead, call an agent!"
@@stevenscott2136 trueee
I have a theory for you Matt. Mickey Mouse, specifically in Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, is controlling the lives of his friends. I’m not entirely sure what his motivation is, but these mouse-ke-tools he uses are always perfectly suited for every situation. Also, everyone know and loves him, and he has incredible technology completely controlled by him.
That’s a good theory
Wait.... Why does that actually make sense!
Disney is so sad. They almost sued a father for wanting a Spiderman grave for his dead son...
When you go into the film industry, you should have something like an organ donor’s card, where it asks if you are ok with being digitally revived.
why not exploit a corpse for thousands of years?
Why only 1 reply
This is horrifying. I imagine most people sign it without a second thought, it's their 1 life.
Not knowing their image could be used by nazis or something in 100 years
LET ME JOIN TEAM THEORIST
@Logan McGlynn
It should just be able to be changed by the person at any point, no questions asked. No one should be planning on making a movie with your dead face before you die (excluding a documentary maybe) so it's not like you're signing a binding contract that then ruins everything if you pull out.
I’ll never forget the The Simpsons did a “Treehouse of Horror” on this subject literally FIFTEEN years ago. It’s insane and sad to see it becoming more and more of a reality.
Do you remember which treehouse of horror? Sounds pretty interesting to see
Not just The Simpsons, but also another Matt Groening IP Futurama covers this in their episode where Fry starts dating a robot version of Lucy Liu whose image was scanned from her living disembodied head. This was revealed as a double whammy because in the 30th Century not only was dating robots highly unlawful, but to use images of dead celebrities or disembodied heads as a basis for a holographic projection on the robot was downright creepy.
@@IzoQuartz S20:E4 Treehouse of Horror XIX
@@DecGang10 Huh, that was really good. I'd given up on Simpsons after season 15 or so, but that was really enjoyable! Funny coincidence it had the dead celebrities of Prince and Buzz Aldrin like this Film Theory episode mentions.
Maybe it's time to realize the creators KNEW something, they didn't have to predict. Wolf in sheep's clothing
It is disturbing that this is happening, and the fact that they don’t take into consideration if the actors would have wanted this. This is an invasion of privacy and should not be legal.
I dealt with this for a friend who was selected for a reality show and wanted advice. I read the contract and by signing she was surrendering her likeness in perpetuity in all broadcast-able space throughout the world, and in all places, known and unknown. I asked them to add a clause stating that her image could not be used for purposes which might have the potential to misrepresent her character.
I don't care what the law says, bringing back actors from the dead just feels very wrong to me.
Younger and older versions of existing actors? Sure, no problem, the actors can consent to that.
Bringing dead actors back to life? Just... no. Let them be. Let them rest in peace.
@@jwilskis4278 The dead actor's families, it's like seeing someone wearing a latex mask of one of your loved ones in a tv show
@@jwilskis4278 you seem like you haven't grasped the meaning of life
@@jwilskis4278 A lot of people care, including the families of said people who are dead.
@@logan_M_ so not that many
But they are resting in peace, because... you know... they're dead
the whole 3d scan thing brings up another problem, new actors. At a certain point, most people are just going to opt into using old likenesses instead of bringing in new talent. This really could delve into the live action media collapsing due to it going stagnant.
I would love to see a very meta movie where actors go on strike against studios that will eventually do this.
that has already happened before, the old radio stars who fell out of popularity once visual appearance became important with tv becoming a thing, heck its even possible some of them could retake positions with this now that appearance is no longer mattering anymore
@@John_C_J That certainly would be something I would look into watching.
Especially if they don't have to pay as much to "hire" dead actors. Depending on how the laws develop around this, if they seem that the actors can just be owned by a company it would cost the company zero dollars to just keep using them over and over. It's a cash cow
At least, it will be until it suddenly stops working. And by then, the industry would have no young talent because they stopped giving roles (aka, giving them the experience or chance they need to shine) to up and coming actors and they'll have to train up new ones. Oddly enough, Disney has been scrambling to get quality 2D animators because they fired em all years ago and no longer put stock in the medium. Now they're literally offering to fund young animators to hire. Almost like karma.
happened with The Irishman. DeNiro was de-aged instead of a younger actor cast. which is ironic considering DeNiro played a young Marlon Brando in the Godfather 2
This reminds me of a specific museum dedicated to the tragedy of the Titanic that my entire family and I visited. The museum claimed that they created the Titanic experience to preserve the memory of the Titanic and everyone who died on the Titanic. The price per person was pretty expensive btw. After the experience, my aunt and I agreed to question upon whether they made the museum to actually preserve the memories of the Titanic or use the tragedy of the Titanic just to gain big bucks. Quite sad to think about really…
I went to one too. I think it’s to show historians and to make money
what about new actors? we've been trying to find the answer to "what do we do when [insert actor] is too old, or dead" for so long. now we can just..use them anyways?? that feels so unfair to actors who are trying to go into the business fresh with their own talent :/
Because People were so into that nostalgia bubble that they don't want another actors or not. Just look at hayden christensen and jack lyod
@@davidthirugnanakumar7888 because people hate change, and they have an unhealthy avoidance of it. It’s part of why society will end soon.
If we hold on to actors who have already died, I really feel like we are limiting the chances even further for young up and coming actors to break through.
I somewhat agree.
I think MatPat talked about this in the last video, but Hollywood is getting more and more centered around IPs than actors so that’s probably gonna happen.
yeah, that would be a problem because the cost difference and time difference
@@rpandya97 However, you don't exactly need to pay a program.
I’m not gonna lie,but people prefer new faces. If they keep using old actors,people will eventually get bored,so I think it’ll be like a cycle of new actors and old actors getting swapped all the time
I feel bad for hollywood actors for the coming generations, it has been an issue for new voice actors to find roles since established VAs can keep working long after a normal actor would since all VAs need is their voice, imagine trying to compete with a dead acting legend who can say whatever the movie producer wants them to, and never needs to do more than one take. I'm not saying I think human actors are going to die out, but we will at least see a divide similar to practical effects compared to CG effects.
Yeah this is what I was thinking
Yeah, and I'd imagine the real kicker is going to be when likenesses start hitting public domain: If companies can just cast long-dead celebrities for free, how many companies are going to go out of their way to hire real actors instead of just "casting" royalty-free dead celebrities instead? And moreover, how much less will companies be willing to pay their remaining living actors when they have that option?
For now we are good, hollywood actors and film stars have the effect of dragging away attention in the media and are often used as scapegoats, thats number one reason they wont die out any time soon, people still need role models, thats number two, lets say theoretically, these companies start using every person that has passed likeness in their movies, the backlash will be insane, and even if it wasnt, how fast would it get old? Thats number three.
Looks like it is hard to do now, but in the future? Mel Blanc is not taking jobs away even from the current WB cast.
The market is going to shift from human actors to voice actors. I'm not sure if I necessarily see that as a bad thing. Actual humans are still getting jobs.
I think that dead celebrity’s should only be used for historical cases (I.E: a documentary) and or if they are ok with it.
Here, in Chile, an interesting case of copyright happened. There’s was this honey called Miel Gibson (miel is Spanish for honey), obviously referring to the actor Mel Gibson. They even put his face (as his character in Braveheart) on the logo. Long story short, Gibson got notice of this, sued the honey company, won the case and now they changed the name and the logo, still referencing the movie, though
While this clearly shows that he owns some rights to his face (he wasn’t gaining anything from the sales, so), I’m also curious that the studio that produced Braveheart didn’t get in on the sue, especially since they are still referencing to it
The other big concern I see with this that wasn’t addressed is the removal of opportunity for new actors and stagnation and staleness of the casting pool which is already a problem in Hollywood and this would only make that so much worse.
agree
yeah. Becoming an actor for me was already pretty hard, and I'd doubt if these were already implemented I'd have become one. I really can't imagine what that's going to be like.
@@projekttaku1 gl mate
@@asghlv5841 thanks. Apparently I'm going to work with marvel on a new project (which is already crazy), but they haven't reported back to me in a while, so I'm anxious.
@@projekttaku1 shake my statues hand please I am in a bird
I remember when people joked about Harry Potter remakes and being old and saying Emma Watson will always be their Hermione, but now the truth is that they’ll just deepfake them. It’s kind of creepy.
Nope! Here's why ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/видео.html
Nope! Here's why ruclips.net/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/видео.html
There's plenty of Emma Watson deep fakes too.
If you think if this as a demonic contract. Then it is. Since you now technically worl for them beyond death. But now as their puppet with no will of your own.
That ain't creepy. Its horrifying.
Its just my opinion but... maybe we can use bitcoin's system to make all of our faces nfts thus legally own our faces and we can even tell whos real and fake by using that. deep fake's problem is about being too real, maybe this idea can fix it
Honestly I could see them doing this with any famous person, not just actors. Which is scary
I've been wondering, when could we get a Film Theory for The Owl House? That would be awesome
or learning with pibby
Yass it's the perfect time to! Some irresponsible kid god left with your adopted family is pretty good for theories
That part at the end is the worst to think about. That 50 years from now, people won't really care that 3 characters in the movie are deepfakes of dead people, they're just excited about "what if Charlie Chaplin and Marilyn Monroe were in a sci-fi drama fighting the evil character played by James Dean?"
We already experience it by now: anything that isn't revolutionary gets to be ignored and be forgotten after they peaked their fame just because "it's classic" and "it's nostalgic".
Who's the king of pop? Michael Jackson.
Who can be the next king of pop? No one and it will be always be Michael Jackson until the end of time. Say otherwise and masses will not agree with you.
It's also fairly evident now with the Marvel movies, like how the masses agree that there will be only one Wolverine in their hearts: Hugh Jackman and there will only be one Deadpool in their hearts: Ryan Reynolds. Just look at the reaction of the fans when they heard that Hugh wont be returning as Wolverine in the next character's appearance and will be replaced with someone younger.
@@christiangarcia4925 In a couple of decades when hollywood does another reboot of whatever, the next generation has their own version of who played Wolverine, or Deadpool and a 20 sum Batmans and Batvillians.
As for such titles as King of Pop, Prince of Darkness and the likes, it will take some time but I have no doubt some artist in the future will be named that at some point. As they say: The King is dead, long live the King.
I credit myself as the biggest James Dean fan alive today, and if that happens there will be a drama of me fighting the hollywood execs
You forget that Disney will eventually be on both sides of this issue. Walt died in 1966, so if Disney wants to avoid him showing up in other places, they'll need to lobby him just like they do with the mouse.
Interesting.
@@mangoturtle4257 Nope that’s the company trademark not the person.
@@mangoturtle4257 So, technically, Disney could make his likeness into a trademark, by using it themselves and registering it to themselves, renewing that trademark through new forms of use every few years like how they're trying to keep control of Mickey Mouse without extending copyright for everyone else. The problem there is that it's going to be a lot harder to keep Walt the same way they're keeping Mickey, as it's much easier to make "permuted modifications" of an animated character than a human being.
Another reason copyright and trade mark should go away
@@TheXLAXLimpLungs They shouldn't go away, but they are definitely a good 50 years out of date. Back when copyright/trademark/patent laws were made, the world moved so much slower. Whereas nowadays the same income and benefit they would have gotten from 70+ years is made in 7.
Seeing this though is making me think that they need to have different times for different things. And definitely give people the right to take their work and say "When I die, it does too." and lock it out of the public domain with the caveat that they and their estate aren't allowed to touch it either. Because god dang this stuff is not okay and will need to get addressed sooner rather than later.
"Thats not a hologram of will smith, thats a hologram of his career"
Matt: "oh, well ain't that just a slap in the face"
One big concern I have about this, is how it potentially takes away from the value of new actors filling old rolls. Even if the replacements are technically credited, people may never acknowledge their talent, because they still attribute the modern version of the character with the old actor. I'm not saying that is guaranteed to happen, but it's just a concern I have.
Actors should not be held up like puppets long after they're gone. It feels like grave digging... I really hope legislation can be passed to right these wrongs, as its important to bring about new celebrities instead of constantly reusing the old.
dont read my name!😐
It's really fucked up
Disney: ruclips.net/video/_5aYyl-PG-w/видео.html
Hahahah that will never happen....you don't seem to realize how the government works
Not everybody agrees with that statement. It should be left up to the actors themselves. A lot of them probably would enjoy the idea of their legacy going on.
This should definitely be outlawed. It's like that saying "don't speak ill of the dead," except instead of talking bad about them you're LITERALLY making THEM talk about whatever you need them to. Those who have passed on should be memorialized, not churned back in through the corporate machine to make even more money for those who want to line their pockets even more off their success.
Maybe it could be turned into a good thing. When for instance a specific amount of the money they made of using a dead actor come to good organisations (children with cancer, etc) , than thats assumingly within the wish of those dead people. And more or less anyone would benefit out of it ?
Look, an actor should be paid for their time as part of compensation for their talent, if the actor is deceased then you can't pay them. Therefore it is invoulontary slavery.
This feels so unethical and morally wrong.
@@PygmalionFaciebat Nah, that's using a wrong to justify a right when it could be entirely avoided or applied to someone who's alive. Some actors make WAYYY too much money regardless of their popularity that could be used for what you propose, and it looks better on them as they're actually alive and the ones making that decision, not a company deciding for you.
@@RemedieX Your first sentence doesnt make any argument to prove its claim. Its its ''wrong, because its just wrong'' . Why do i put that much efford in my posting (like my last one - pointing out examples (like wax figures etc) , if i could do it like you the easy way and saying ''you are just wrong..because it should be this and that way.. and you just using the wrong methods to justify this and that'' ... Discussions in internet could be so easy, if i would do it like 99,9% of people do it on internet. I dont know myself why i put that much efford in it - thinking that sculpted out arguments with reasonings behind it, with complex layers of analogies and provings can mean anything - when the opponent can say every time ''haha your thinking is wrong, because its just wrong, because it shouldnt be that way'' . Maybe i dont want to accept, that my opponent is that simple of a thinker - even when every sentence he made screams exactly that. In the end i am just a stupid optimist about the intellect of my ''opponent'' - and thats why i put that much efford in explaining everything in much more detail than 99,9% of people on the internet, assuming that the other one also wants and is capable of diving in the complex matter of a topic - when its just ''i am right, and you are wrong'' for the other person. Somehow this pattern in most of the people is also interesting , i have to admit.
@@PygmalionFaciebat Man your response just screams of a Superiority Complex.
Calm down, your comment wasn't clever or smart, and didn't even have good examples, it was pretty shallow.
You come off as a little presumptuous kid that thinks his 8th Grade level paragraph is the work of a genius.
It's not.
Imagine dying and being cryogenically preserved, a lot of people do stuff using deepfakes of you (like Disney does) and you are brought back to life. How weird and confusing would that situation be
Hey MatPat, can you do a film theory on the Land Before Time? My friend thinks Little Foot suffered a guilt-induced psychotic break when his mother died, and the other characters are his dissociative personalities. What do you think?
There was a time where this would be considered some kind of Horror Sci-Fi. Now it's just daily life.
Not really, because then issues would most likely be either literally reviving people or putting their personalities into robots - something I could very much see in an 80's sci-fi horror - not faking images for entertainment purposes.
I feel we’ve become so attached to a nostalgic image that executives are terrified of recasting someone once they’ve died. When Gloria foster died after Matrix Reloaded, they found an actor to play the oracle and that was totally fine. If we don’t continue that, we’re going to have a hard time moving forward.
The lesson to always be aware of is that what’s legal isn’t always what’s right and vis versa.
"what's legal isn't always what's right" - perfectly said.
@@emilykeepsmiling9465 I swear there’s a metal gear rising joke here, but I don’t wanna make it
It’s vice versa* and you used the phrase wrong. The word you’re looking for is _inverse._ That said, I agree with your comment.
I agree as well. Plus, I've seen Wakanda Forever, and they managed to do a great job handling Chadwick Boseman's death by having T'Challa die offscreen and using only flashbacks of him. I figure we need to do the same thing or something similar. I for one would rather honor the deceased by pulling a Wakanda Forever and acknowledge their deaths than have uncanny valley fakes created by CGI. We need to protect the deceased from being used this way. Ladies, gentlemen, and mxs everywhere, join together, unite, and stand to protect those who no longer have a voice to speak..
IF your ever low on ideas a theory about how jar jar is a sith lord would be hilarious (and there's actually some pretty incriminating evidence).
Jesus this video is all the more terrifyingly and eerily accurate with what's going on with Disney/Stan Lee contract right now. Very good video👍
On the topic of Disney, did we ever think about the old incredibles movie? I mean Edna made suits to withstand immense friction, virtually indestructible, bulletproof, machine washable, yet it “breathes like Egyptian cotton”. If we could get a theory that could actually determine the material used to make the suits that’d be amazing.
Off topic but i love the idea :D
Uhh you need a life, if this is what you are concerned and think about lol
@@iamextremest Or maybe you should keep your mouth shut. This is a theories channel and they suggested a theory.
@@phoenixcrown9966 don't waste your time dude. They're clearly just a sad little troll who's desperate for attention. Just ignore them.
frfr
Here's an interesting one: do notorious people, such as Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy, have these rights, so that their terrible crimes are not covered by fake positive messages? Like what would be legal grounds, if any, that would stop someone from deep faking a criminal so that they are a good person in the message, therefore attempting to discredit their real actions prior?
I think free speech allows for any messages - positive or negative given that they’re not calls to direct violence or imminent harm. I think there was a South Park episode where they had ted bundy, John gacey and Jeffery dalmer acting like the three stooges and killing each other in a comical way. It’s totally allowed??
I'm not sure that would ever be a problem. The ONLY value of a Ted Bundy is the sensationalistic image of a serial killer, so no one of any significance would have a motive to "reform" their image. (Well, okay, Lucas did it with Vader...) The South-Park-style mockery would probably be as far as anyone would have any reason to go.
We DO have people reforming the far worse criminals of the political world, but that's been going on for much longer than we've had imaging tech, and there's a whole other level of motivation at work there.
An interesting concept with deep fakes is that of truly factual reporting. What you bring up is interesting but it may be far more upsetting to learn that these technologies could be used to change the message of anything from politics, cartoons, or even a little video from your grandma. People are worried about misinformation now, but do consider how bad it could be if you can LITERALLY put words in others mouths and make it look realistic enough to be taken seriously. Would that be considered slander/libel? Interesting thought
@@wereman08 yea it would, pretty sure if its false and damages the other person materially its illegal
Eventually we are going to see the marketing of movies with new actors as the appeal for people vs revived actors
I actually referenced the Peter Cushing situation in an intellectual property Law essay about personality rights at Uni in the UK. It’s a surprisingly interesting and unexplored subject.
Theory idea: In The Hobbit, when they get to the gold, Thorin gets more mentally blinded, more easily irritated, shifts to becoming suspicious a lot, quicker mood shifts into rage, and has more anxiety in the form of wanting to find the Arkenstone. Steroid effects, anyone?
This is so dark holy moly. Thanks Matthew for revealing this problem with the world. Your videos are so cool.
MatPat is a brain burner!(Правдивое видео): ruclips.net/video/cAQxPSwM4h0/видео.html
Who are these bots?
It's strange seeing someone say his full first name like that. Especially without his full last name, Matthew Patthew.
It is evidence of the soypunk dystopia.
It's getting even stranger since the voice isn't going to be needed for much longer. AI is starting to replicate another person's voice as well as their face, so anyone could portray a deceased actor.
If the actor themselves owns their voice, is it also a discussion as to whether or not synthesized speech is legal?
bruv, I'm actor, and now I'm getting worried about my face and voice being used after my death.
AI mixed with real voice samples sound weird AF(see the same Mandalorian-Luke debacle) but there are indeed some completely synthesized voices that sound eerily similar to real voices. There was one I stumbled on a couple of months ago, which was a youtube video of a synthesized Adam Driver\Ben Solo voice(it was a silly narration of the old Star Wars movies) that sounded VERY close to the real one. Like, that stuff could be used for malicious intents tbh and legislation needs to take care of it.
@@projekttaku1 you’re probably not going to become big enough to have this happen to you lol
@@cheetodust745 I don't know wether that's a good thing or bad?
The funny part about it is known that sometimes it's not able to pronounce words correctly like I was messing around with an AI voice website but also most of the voices on that website were not real people they will fictional characters and of course I decided to select Amity from the owl house but it couldn't say the main character Luz's name correctly to be fair I also mess around with AI storytellers but those always tend to go in a strange direction and mostly known for writing fanfiction.
As a performer, this is the type of things that continue to concern me as the years progress. If an actor is no longer here, & didn't want to be associated with further puppet usage, their wishes should be respected. Great dive on the Disney Archives Mate 🐺 🐾
About this episode's interlude... and this episode in general: It hits different since earlier this winter at the Disney 100 Expo, the Disney company made a hologram of Walt Disney himself. 👀
i find it fun that mat can talk about such a dark and morally ambiguous topic and still keep it fun and lighthearted
Very cool Mr. Fortnite Blevins
MatPat is a brain burner!(Правдивое видео):
ruclips.net/video/cAQxPSwM4h0/видео.html
WHILE still remaining very respectful! MatPat’s ability to control all three at once is honestly amazing.
Further question: what happens if a celebrity, while still alive, states in a sort-of-will-legal-document that they forbid anyone from using their image, name and likeness in perpetuity after their death?
I think it's something that could happen. Sure it would ruin their own family's hopes to keep milking them after their death. But couldn't that also be seen as a positive to the dying celebrity in many cases?
Thanks for your videos!
I believe Bob Ross tried doing this, but his business partners used some shady tactics to void the will, which is why we have Bob Ross merchandise and stuff today. The family of course wasn't (and still isn't) happy about that and have been fighting it ever since
Ultimately, it depends on the lawyers... including the ones in the relevant legislature, if they decide to get involved by making a new law on the subject.
Your will can be contested and your signature dies with you. It's kinda fucked how easily your will can be tossed away in certain circumstances
At 4:00 and as with SO MUCH ELSE, Robin Williams saw this coming and SPECIFICALLY WROTE IN HIS WILL THAT, "NO ONE MAY USE MY LIKENESS, VOICE OR ANY CHARACTER I'VE CREATED/PLAYED/PORTRAYED AFTER MY DEATH FOR MARKETING, COMMERCIAL OR FILM ADAPTATIONS." Boom.
@@tomesofawesome8041 he is the goat for a reason
My great grandad is Sabastian Cabot and he worked as a actor for Disney being in live action movies and animated movies such as being the narrator for Winnie the Pooh.
If he was in a new movie i personally would love it
It'll be decided by audiences and how the family/decendants of the dead actors behave. If a well respected dead actor starts apprearing in lots of adverts and productions they would never have agreed to be a part of I can see the family protesting and getting the public on side to boycot the products/film. Judges being cowardly basically leaves it up to public opinion.
Imagine if a celebrity died and then weaks later a video circulating in the internet shows that they faked their death and is actually alive. Imagine the relief and hope that celeb's friends and family would feel knowing their loved one is safe and well. Imagine a global search to find this person, to locate where they are now.
But then eventually they realize that the video was fake, that it was made by some random troll who felt bored and thought pulling people's heart strings was funny or entertaining.
Would be kinda funny lol,.....at this point in time not many people in the world are capable of making a deep fake good enough to pass
@@bidxmanplays3253 It would def not be funny, plus people are getting better better at making digital faces.
@@grassblock7668 personal opinion
@@bidxmanplays3253 your personal opinion is kinda f*cked up ngl,re-chech your morals my friend
That is the point of this! They fake people being alive, and you know some desperate fans out there will even believe these people are back!!
Gusteu from Ratatouille comes to mind with the dead celebrity thing. Skinner did this exact thing to promote his frozen foods. Pixar is actually kind of genius for doing this over 10 years ago.
Didn’t the Simpson have an episode about this? I remember Krusty explaining something very similar YEARS ago
4:46 it's at this point I finally ask myself
Who is this guy in the stock photo
And is he still around and famous after being used in hundreds if not thousands of videos across the internet?
"ethically icky" is definitely how it makes me feel, thank you for your always eloquent analysis (but forreal tho... it feels wrong if the thing wasnt already in production when the death happened)
Hm, that whole "Walt is cryogenically frozen to come back to life later" theory is starting to look more like fact.
He Was cremated.
Not Frozen it's just a joke.. About his death.
@@cremyalipante1917 I'm unsure any details about said cremation were ever released and I'm unsure anyone even went to it minus the 'cremators' so technically it's unproven. And the way these deepfakes are going it's seeming the frozen theory could honestly be true. I don't wanna cause any arguments by this just stating what I've heard.
Love it or hate it, one point in favor that I can see from the Studio's standpoint is that a dead talent's legacy is pretty static, while living talent can become embroiled in any sort of controversy. It's overall safer from a reputation standpoint.
I want to see a video on going into detail of how possible the Pixar Theory really is.
SuperCarlinBrothers made a statement in their Onward video stating that there’s no disproving the Pixar Theory.
And that sounds like a challenge if I ever heard one.
I wish my calculus lectures were narrated by Mattpatt. He has a way of making everything sound interesting. Math Theory? I’ll be waiting for it.
*Yes! That would be perfect!*
I personally would like to see music theory, but math theory sounds interesting
@@lillygaddy6450 I definitely wanna see music theory
math theory- matpat’s 17th channel
English theory.It needs to happen
Disney has technically been doing this for a long time with the voices of actors used in their rides at the disney parks. The actors and actresses featured on The Haunted Mansion died a long time ago, but you can go hear them as the narrator and other characters right now. Pixar tested the reception when they announced that they would be using the past voice clips of Don Rickles so he could appear as Mr Potato Head in Toy Story 4 despite passing away before recording was done. They didn't end up using much, but I think it was more testing how audiences would respond to something like that. If disney pulls off having the likeness and voices of characters they'll be able to keep characters frozen in time even if the actor is still alive.
Yeah my great grandad is Sabastion Cabot and he is still used in the Tiki room as he voiced one of the parrots. Personally my family is fine with it but I know some people won’t be.
I think they need to get permission from the family before they do anything
one minute into the video and i’m already excited :>
love what ya do, MatPat! keep it up 😌
I just got an acting degree and I wouldn’t mind if they used my likeness after my death, but only in the context of a franchise where I would’ve already played and character and they want to keep constancy for that. Not just randomly take my face and voice for a new role.
As much as I love seeing these actors after they’ve passed on I don’t think it’s right treating them like a puppets for new movies and things
But it would be sick to see Stanley again, I kinda miss him.
Yeh but remember how annoyed his daughter was seeing Sony and Disney fight over Spider-Man how annoyed would they be seeing Disney use Stan’s face for cameos
Honestly, this feels like a mix between good and bad, it's good to see an actor's face long after they've died, but then again, it might be against their will because how would they even feel having to have words spat out of your mouth after you've died. But to be fair, I'm really not sure how I'd feel if that was me
I feel like the ghostbusters one was done in a way where it was respectful
A person should own an image and/or exact copy of themselves, but not a cartoonized version. Deepfake should be illegal now with all lack of consent of the one being deepfaked. The law is corrupt.
Let all dead people rest in peace, and yes, celebrities are people to.
Thank you.This exact comment.
underrated
This man teaches better than a teacher.
"Who OWNS a dead celebrity." Sir, that questions makes me REAL uncomfortable. My feeling is that NO one owns them, since, y'know, they're humans and you can't own a human. But...at that point...is it more of a v for vendetta thing? "We are told to remember the idea and not the man." Are they becoming idea's instead of like actual people who are passed? This just makes me feel real icky, and I don't much care for it. :/
No one care about your feeling
Personally, I think it should be illegal for a dead person's image to be used after they die to make profit for a company. Some exceptions apply.
History articles? Because by that logic, no one should be writing biographies
I agree, but I'm having trouble clarifying in my head what exceptions these would be. My first thought was charities. Say for example a person was a victim of fun crime and their image was used afterwards to raise money for charities campaigning to end gun crime.
But I also feel like there will always be loopholes and people willing and creative enough to take advantage. What do you think?
@@emilykeepsmiling9465 exceptions being if they were involved with a movie prior to their death. Any movie after that, then no.
@@haloplayeroflegend2515 then what about biography movies where they use the persons image? Or do you mean a digital cgi copy?
@yasio bolo i think you replied to the wrong comment
could you do a theory on “over the moon”? it feels like the fei fei’s trip to the moon is fishy…
0:13 was such a missed opportunity to say "ah das hot."
i need you to remember you made this comment
I just love how MatPat takes any opportunity he can to paint Mickey Mouse in a darker and more disturbing light
Of course, he's MatPat LOL
Haha. Not even close. You know Disney thanked the ChiCom Gulag guards for letting them film Mulan right? Disney is actively complicit in gen.o.cide... and digital necromancy is "dark"? You need to pay more attention.
This comment section has so many bots
They have a long dark past they shared, MatPat doesn't like talking about it
How many of them voted for Biden
So misattributed quotes can now be questionably real. "If you can't take me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best" - Marilyn Monroe, 2030 (probably)
MatPat is a brain burner!(Правдивое видео): ruclips.net/video/cAQxPSwM4h0/видео.html
Жжжжжж
"Put it in your mouth or i'll tell your parents you skipped school"
- Jesus, November 2nd 2022 (allegedly)
"The game was though but we got the win and we take the 3 points home" - Gandhi, 2045
“Never play leapfrog with a unicorn while juggling flaming chainsaws”- George Washington, 3035
Hi MatPat and the film theory team, just wondering if you have done a theory on heathers or heathers the musical, I think there might be some hidden lore in heathers like character back stories or is Veronica the actual manipulative one, also great work on this video :]
I will say this now or I will forever hold my piece. MY CORPSE IS MY PROPERTY!!! NO ONE CAN USE MY CORPSE FOR ANYTHING!
My opinion on using dead celebrities in movies would be dependent on what that role is,
A role the celebrity played when they were alive? When done right then audiences emersion isn’t broken
A celebrity playing themselves? Then that would be paying tribute to the actual person
A celebrity playing a completely new role? That should be illegal because it prevents new talent from getting into the industry
Somehow I want to agreed on this, but I m not sure about that...
@@GamerKent427 I can understand that, I am not a lawyer and I doubt you are one either so we don’t know the effects that certain changes of the law would have outside of the intention of said change
It's such a weird topic. On one hand, you have prolonging the life and legacy of someone, but on the other, using a dead person to promote their stuff. How long would we have to wait for a full zombie cast in a movie? I feel like it should be illegal. After all, if a celebrity promotes something bad, you go to them after it's confirmed they did a bad thing. So, what if they're already dead and the promotions are from hundreds or thousands of random companies that just used their image.
that intro was just perfect
when someone dies, let them pass. let them have the legacy they left and that’s that. no words in their mouths, no making the act when they’re not even alive. it’s not only ethically messed up but also just creepy. that leia clip looks so uncanny how could anyone be okay with it
This whole thing is like a Dark Mirror episode. Something that started off as a joke but somehow became a fad instead.
I think there was a movie called The Congress or something like that. I may be misremembering the title of course, but the plot is about an actress who is replicated so she could continue even after death. There was also this other plot point with the virtual world and that blind brother... What am I even talking about? I'm clearly mistaking a movie description for a dream I had, right? How does this make sense? The word worm scene, with the aquarium, volcano sounds, and the boy reading someone's lips... I am so confused.
Sorry if my confusion impeded your reading.
@@masicbemester No, I looked it up you got the name right. It's real, has a rotten tomatoes page and everything.
The whole world becomes more of a Dark Mirror episode every day.
@@failmasterjm what does the movie have to do with the Congress? I forgot most of it.
In the case of Carrie Fisher, I believe she gave explicit permission for her character to be used in the movie in the event of her passing. She absolutely loved being Princess Leia, she was our real life princess, and she wanted her storyline to play out. Unfortunately, she passed during the filming of the final movie. The amazing thing is, her family also loves Star Wars and their princess, so her biological daughter stood in on screen for her and they used her face as a base to edit leias face onto. I read all of this somewhere, if I can find the article or interview again I will attach it, it was so cool! Because they also had her daughter do cameos in the movie as background characters (other rebels) and they had her hair in two space buns in honor of her mother, princess leias, iconic hairstyle
Yes, and I love it!!!
Well she already joked about how she had to pay George Lucas everytime she looked in a mirror and that was before Disney bought Lucas's film empire
If the family is ok with it, and are being paid, there’s nothing wrong with it. I love what they are doing.
I’m surprised that they haven’t talked about the Back to the future part 2 scandal
I feel like we're getting close in an era where even a video tape can't be trusted anymore.
Its a sad moment when we only look for familiar faces instead of new talent
I don't even know any of the actors in movies, since I just don't care to watch movies these days.
i truly do love that mat said that Tennessee has extended the face use law stating, "the king will Riehn" and I got the new Elvis add the same vid. lol
The intros are always the best! ❤️
These CGI models of dead actors are extremely disrespectful & creepy. Just because you can do it, doesn't mean that you should.
I read that Louis Prima's family own the rights to King Louie the orangutan from the '60s version of The Jungle Book. That's why he's rarely seen, people need permission from them to use his likeness.
The one problem of this is that real, good actors, have had to compete so hard to get there, to have the skill to make a mistake and stay in character letting the camera still role, they have gestures and motions that the studio just can’t replicate.
There’s a reason it’s one of the hardest careers. You can’t replace these professionals. Even if it looks like them, talks like them, it will never be the equivalent of their acting.
Like when Kabuto reanimated Madara Uchiha, he put max strength into him only to find he underestimated Madara and the reanimation was actually under powered despite still murdering everything in his path.
"You do not understand, this is not power of your creation." and a Reanimated Death Gate 8 Inner Gates Guy would have been SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OP probs why the body turned to ash really the Ultimate Technique.
WHY DO I UNDERSTAND YOU.
It's like the entertainment industry's version of AI taking jobs.
@@cheesecakelasagna begs the question of who's job is safe?
Or rather, for how long will it be safe?
I love how in the thumbnail Stan-Lee is in the middle of the thumbnail R.I.P Stan-lee
Yet again another absolutely amazing video keep it up matpat
Technology-wise this is really cool. As a computer scientist it's amazing to see this is possible. Ethically however I really dislike this. It just feels so wrong to use dead people, especially when they're used for something they didn't do before. I can kinda get wanting to use the actual Luke Skywalker's face and stuff like that, because the created character looks and speaks like that. Using a dead celebrity for marketing or completely new movies feels wrong though. First of all, move on and use actors that are alive today! Give them a chance instead of relying on people long past. Second, it just feels like they're making a mockery of the dead and that just feels so wrong
And it usually looks pretty off too... at least for now, when the technology is still new.
4:35 Also, Matt Pat using the image of some stock photo guy to explain this concept really emphasizes the point he's making. 😄 That stock photo guy owns his actual face, but doesn't own all these individual representations of his face in the video.
kindof, stock photography has its own contracts
And from what I've heard people make some pretty big bucks from selling their likeness as stock photos.
So let me get this straight. A photographer went out into the field to get photos his whole career and livelihood is based off of him getting photos and popularizing them for use in publications. His camera happened to capture a photo in part because of his placing it in a convenient place, but not by his direct intervention. In accordance with his job he spreads the photo and it becomes his most popular photo, but because he want the one who clicked the button, he gets nothing. If it wasn’t for him nobody except him would have even been able to see the photo.
I don’t know. In don’t feel it’s fair that a photographer doesn’t get compensated for sharing a photo in his possession that wouldn’t have existed without his camera that he paid for and circumstances that wouldn’t have existed without him. It just frustrates me a bit to hear.
0:24 this will age like milk
Soon ;)
@@AlloRose what do you mean by that-
It will
I'm captivated by the idea that pretty soon video games could have celebrity voice trained AI systems rather than pre-recorded dialog. This would open the door to much more streamlined game dev while (hopefully) compensating VO actors with royalties with far less in-studio work involved for them.
That would be cool. Imagine hearing Elvis and seeing him in something like the next Red dead or Fallout.
@@94studios76 it would be cool ngl but imagine just how cursed it could get
i would rather it reaches a point where i could choose to deep fake myself and allow me to put myself in the video game. now that's extremely personalized.
Looking at the state of the industry, that last hope is probably not going to be fulfilled even if everything else happens. You know that companies will find or create legal loopholes to pay for what they use. Oops, misspoke. To pay as little as they can get away with for what they use.
It would be cool for games where you can name the protagonist, so instead of using another word or just avoiding having to use it the game could generate a sound for the name.
here's an idea if you ever do another "cabinalism week", In ducktales, are people (Ducks? Humanoid animals?) eating their own species? Like do ducks take the Normal ducks and eat them not caring what they're eating. I don't really know how to explain it, but i think i'd be cool to look into it. Love the channels tho
MatPat is a brain burner!(Правдивое видео):
ruclips.net/video/cAQxPSwM4h0/видео.html
cannibalism*
but yeah that'd be interesting
I would absolutely love to see you do a video on the ERU (Ephemeral Rift Universe) that a RUclipsr Ephemeral Rift has been building for years now.
I think bringing someone back to the big screen for a role they've played to begin with is ok but not if it's just because you want them in your movie