"They were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should" - Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park, 1993
Three decades ago, Jeff Goldblum's character warned us about the dangers of resurrecting dinosaurs, a warning that, ironically, now applies to Hollywood's fascination with resurrecting its own icons. While digital resurrection isn’t new, advances in CGI, AI and deepfake technology have made bringing actors back from the dead disturbingly easy.
So, let’s dive into this practice!
WHAT IS DIGITAL NECROMANCY?
Digital necromancy refers to the practice of digitally resurrecting deceased performers through CGI and/or AI, enabling them to perform in roles and scenes they never filmed—or even speak lines they never uttered. This isn’t about recycling old footage anymore; it’s about creating entirely new performances.
“Coined in an article in The Guardian, digital necromancy is the posthumous resurrection of digital images of celebrities and actors; they walk, they talk and – most exciting for advertising execs and studio heads – cash registers ring when the death knell tolls”, The New Daily.
When done well, it can be well received, as in Furious 7, where Paul Walker’s unfinished scenes were completed using his brothers as body doubles. The result? A heartfelt farewell that honored the actor.
But the practice often lands in the “should we” zone. Take Audrey Hepburn, brought back more than a decade after her death in 1993 to... sell chocolate in a 2015 TV commercial. The CGI was well-executed, and while some accepted it as a nostalgic nod, reactions were still mixed. Contrast this with Bruce Lee’s resurrection to sell alcohol, which sparked outrage—not only for using his image in a commercial but also because Lee famously didn’t drink.
NOT NEW IN THE INDUSTRY, BUT THE RULES ARE CHANGING
Resurrecting deceased actors has often been driven by necessity—a way to complete a film after tragedy strikes, as seen before with Paul Walker.
The first use of CGI to resurrect an actor seems to be with Brandon Lee, who in 1994, died on the set of The Crow due to a prop gun accident. According to Collider, the production was nearly complete, needing only 30 seconds of footage from the actor to wrap. To finish the film, the team turned to CGI, digitally superimposing Brandon’s face onto a body double for the remaining scenes.
“When the accident occurred, it was unbearable and the first reaction was: we can’t go on. But the performance itself was done and I felt compelled to finish this work as a legacy to Brandon”, Edward R. Pressman, producer.
This marked a historic turning point in filmmaking. For the first time, computers were used to recreate a performance posthumously—setting the stage for what we now call digital necromancy.
However, today’s digital resurrections are no longer about necessity—they are a creative choice. James Dean, who died in 1955, was controversially cast in Finding Jack (now cancelled), a Vietnam War drama. Director Anton Ernst defended the decision, saying, “We searched high and low for the perfect character… and after months of research, we decided on James Dean”. In another upcoming project, Back to Eden, Dean’s digital likeness will lead a sci-fi journey across America, further showcasing how technology now allows filmmakers to use iconic stars purely for their nostalgic and cultural appeal.
“If the dead – or rather, their digital clones – are damned to an eternity of work, who benefits financially? And do the dead have any rights?”, BBC
A similar debate surrounds Ian Holm’s return in Alien: Romulus. Digitally recreated to play Rook, a new synthetic, Holm’s mix of animatronic with CGI likeness prompted divided opinions. Director Fede Alvarez acknowledged the challenges, admitting in Empire that the CGI had to be “fixed” for the home release. But the controversy isn’t about technology’s capacity to do it realistically or not. The real question is: Was Holm’s return even necessary, or was it simply digital necromancy for nostalgia’s sake?
Adding to the debate, the BBC explains that agencies like CMG Worldwide are leading the charge in managing the digital legacies of deceased stars. These companies broker deals for digital resurrections, ensuring estates are compensated.
VOICE RESURRECTIONS: A FRENCH CONTROVERSY
But AI doesn’t just recreate faces—it can bring voices back too. Like when James Earl Jones signed over the rights to Lucasfilm for AI to recreate Darth Vader’s Voice. Well, the latest controversy is about the French dubbing of Sylvester Stallone’s film Armor, which was done using AI to recreate Alain Dorval’s voice, as he passed away in early 2024.
“AI doesn’t replace the magic of human creativity—it opens new doors for it. Recreating Alain Dorval’s voice is a chance to show how technology can honor tradition while creating new possibilities in film production”, Eleven Lab’s CEO Mati Staniszewski for Variety.
The public wasn’t convinced. When the trailer dropped, fans criticized the voice for lacking Dorval’s warmth, as reported by Paris Match. Even more, Dorval’s daughter revealed that her consent had only been for a test—not for the final release.
The backlash highlights the pitfalls of AI recreations: even with consent, there’s a fine line between tribute and exploitation.
THE MALCOLM MEASURE OF CREEPINESS: A STARTING POINT
In the absence of apparent formal guidelines, creators like Pentex Productions on YouTube have tried to bring order to the chaos. In their essay, "A.I. See Dead People", they propose what they call the "Malcolm Measure of Creepiness," a framework inspired by Dr. Ian Malcolm’s iconic warning from Jurassic Park.
Here’s how it works. The framework assigns a score from 0 to 25 - the higher the score, the creepier (and less ethically sound) the digital resurrection is - based on four key factors:
Time Since Death: Resurrecting someone recently deceased scores low (0-2 points), while decades later maxes out the creepiness at 5.
Connection to the Role: Completing a known role scores low (0-2 points), but creating a new, unrelated performance scores 5.
Consent: Direct consent from the actor scores 0, family consent 3, and no consent at all maxes out at 5.
Technology Used: Recycled footage scores 1-2, while full AI/CGI recreations hit 5.
A total score above 15 lands firmly in the "yikes zone", according to the framework. And here's the kicker - if it's for an advertisement, add an extra point for pure commercial exploitation.
While the method isn’t official, it’s a practical starting point for understanding why some recreations feel respectful (like Paul Walker in Furious 7, scoring 0-5) and others cross the line (Alien: Romulus' Ian Holm hitting 11-17).
CAN WE, SHOULD WE?
The "Malcolm Measure" reminds us that it’s not about the technology itself but about intent. Are we honoring an actor’s legacy or mining nostalgia for profit? Why not work with new actors? Recast? Create something different?
While technology advances way faster than we can evolve, we - mere homo sapiens that we are - struggle to keep pace with its implications, may they be ethical, moral, psychological and more! Because it's not only the icons who will digitally come back from the dead. It's also loved ones and even Jesus (if you want an article abou it, let me know in the comments!).
So, again: should vs. could.
Comments