Home Movies

Disney’s needless approach to de-aging sums up the increasing AI problem in a nutshell

They may look young, but they don't have that much life in them.

Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker
Image via Disney Plus

It’s no secret that Disney has the ability to de-age people. Look at the Star Wars franchise for example, which brought back a young Luke Skywalker despite Mark Hamill‘s age. Just because Disney can do it, it doesn’t mean it’s perfect. Upon closer inspection, people noticed some of the issues that this type of technology currently has.

Recommended Videos

Twitter user @OliverJia1014 has argued that Disney’s de-aging technology, while it is impressive, doesn’t make the person look completely human. Instead, it made the characters look like an “uncomfortable plastic puppet.” His first example was Disney’s attempt to de-age Peter Cushing to have his character return in Rogue One.

In addition, images were shared of the modern appearances of Luke and Anakin Skywalker, two iconic characters in the Star Wars franchise. They argued that Disney showed “inconsistencies” when it came to de-aging its characters due to the process done for Luke and Anakin being completely different. Luke received a similar CGI treatment, while Disney managed to make Hayden Christensen look younger thanks to makeup and lighting.

The casual viewer might not notice these differences, but seeing this technology used through still images would make you wonder if Disney would be able to make its CGI characters look more lifelike, alongside keeping their youthful complexions.

It was announced last year that Star Wars legend James Earl Jones gave his voice rights to Disney so the company would use AI if they need to bring back the iconic villain. And while one could argue that Darth Vader is a cyborg and that it wouldn’t be noticeable, what happens when other actors give their voice rights to AI? Does the company have the ability to make them sound less robotic and more human?

At the end of the day, this is just Disney showing off the technology it has. Based on the arguments, though, it seems like content creators with a general understanding of deep fake technology could do a better job than a billion-dollar company.

Exit mobile version