[Porsche-O-Phile]

I've wondered about this with the release of "Star Wars Episode 9" in the not-too-distant future. Undoubtedly there is SOMETHING that will have to be done with the character of Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher). At the end of "Rogue One" there is a bridge scene that connects that plot to the beginning of "Star Wars Episode 4", the original. To get Princess Leia into that movie, she had to be "created" to look as she did back in 1979 - looks, voice, mannerisms, everything. It is very, very well done to the point where it's not possible to tell it didn't involve an actual human being (I've been told that her character was inserted as completely CG, not an age-correct body double or anything like that).

So the bottom line is (and I'm sure there are lots of producers asking the same thing), "why do we need to be paying lots of money to actors / actresses when all we really need is a persona"? Perhaps there are people who will end up selling their "likeness" for use, but will they actually be doing "acting" per se in the future? I'm not so sure. A CG operator can fully control and easily edit anything, rather than having to do expensive retakes with acting talent. The technology is simply that good and only getting better as time goes on.

I'm guessing there will always be some kind of market for acting but it has likely seen (or is about to) its high-water mark in terms of how much money it will command and how much influence the likes of SAG will have. It almost certainly will wane as producers look to sidestep the expensive payrolls and get exactly what they want in far less time and with far less production cost overall.