Advancements in technology continue to amaze me. As an avid movie-goer, I admire how CGI and visual effects can be used to enhance our movie experience. Last week, filmmakers creating a movie titled, “Finding Jack” announced they would be casting James Dean for a major role. Dean, as many of you reading this know, has been dead for over six decades.

The film creators said they looked far and wide for the perfect fit in their movie and, after getting approval from his family, decided they could cast James Dean in the film by using CGI to recreate his face while another actor would play the voice and body of the character.

Many actors have spoken out in disapproval of this decision. “Captain America” actor Chris Evans hit the nail on the head when he tweeted, “Maybe we can get a computer to paint us a new Picasso or write a couple new John Lennon tunes.”

I completely agree with Evans and other actors who disapprove of the use of bringing back a dead actor in a completely new film. To me, it sounds like a marketing gimmick – a way to sell tickets to a movie no one was probably going to watch. It also sounds like a way to cheat actors out of jobs and money.

If you can use a dead actor’s face in a movie, why hire living actors who might have ideas or thoughts on how to portray a particular character? By using a computer, the industry is eliminating the humanness that makes the scenes feel real. A CGI “actor” can’t put their own spin on a character; they have nothing to add except whatever the filmmaker wants. This goes back to Evans’s comparison to using computers to make music and paintings – sure a computer could create a masterpiece, but what makes it “human” for us? How do we connect if the life is taken out of the art? What makes it “real?”

Furthermore, a dead actor can’t get paid. Dean’s family is profiting from his work while doing little to nothing themselves.

Using CGI to bring back the dead isn’t a new idea, but there is a right and wrong way to do it. Perhaps I should rephrase that to say, there is a classy way and a distasteful way.

After the death of Paul Walker, “Fast and Furious,” filmmakers found a way to honor him by using CGI to bring closure. In “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” actor Peter Cushing was brought back to life through GCI to reprise his role as Grand Moff Tarkin. Movies like “The Hungar Games” and “Gladiator” have used CGI to finish the movie when an actor had passed away during filming. But there is one major difference between these uses of CGI and using James Dean in a movie 60 years after he died: autonomy.

The actors mentioned above agreed to play those characters before they died and filmmakers did not use CGI as a gimmick, but rather as a tasteful nod or as a way to complete the original story.

Bringing back an actor for a completely new role when they have no say is distasteful. I support the use of CGI, but if the film industry continues down this path of creating new roles for dead actors, we are going to see a huge backlash from actors. I think over time, movies with CGI characters will lack something important to us all – humanness.