I am not sure whether to be enthusiastic or creeped out by the director's attempt to keep Heath in his movie. I guess it depends on how much footage was shot of the actor amd also how advanced technology has come as far as superimposing someone's face to someonelse's body without it lookin odd. None-the-less, good luck Mr. Gillman I hope it will further honor Heath's work as an actor.

I think that on a personal level Mr Gillman needs to finish the film. He and Heath had worked together before. As part of his grieving process I can understand Mr. Gillman's desire to complete the project. Heath brought a different texture to each role. I hope that Mr. Gillman comes to terms with losing a friend.
And, also that the completion of the movie not be cause for more sorrow for Heath's family but an opportunity to have more memories to treasure.
God bless you all.

I think that it is great that he would try to honor Heath Ledger. However, I think that superimposing his face is not the right way to go. Being realistic, this is a $30 million film, so it has to get finished...That being said, it would be creepy to see a CGI version of Heath. I think it would be better to have different actors fill in for the falling the the mirror sequences.

I think that if you do CGI then everyone is going to be wondering the whole movie which is the real Heath and which isn't.

Either way, this is a terrible tragedy...on the personal level, a young child lost her father and a woman became a single mother, and two parents had to bury their child. On a hollywood level, we have lost a very talented actor that would have performed brilliantly in many movies to come. Which ever way you look at it, a young man died too soon and that is always tragic.

Dios te bendiga Heath......donde quiera que estes Dios esta contigo y nosotros tambien de corazon...eras o mejor dicho sigues siendo el mejor.......

If, and I must stress, "if" this rumor you've encountered is true, it would not be the first time in history that a technique like the one you described has been employed for the sake of "resurrecting" an actor who has passed away. The most well-publicized of these instances is the film, "The Crow." After Brandon Lee was killed in an on-set accident, Alex Proyas and his team completed the film using a combination of body doubles and CGI for scenes in which it was necessary to see see Lee's face. A complete list of those scenes can be found on IMDB.com under the FAQ for "The Crow."

In addition to "The Crow," this technique has played a role in at least two other productions which I can think of. In "The Sopranos," following the death of Nancy Marchand (Livia Soprano, Tony's mother), Livia appeared on screen thanks to a combination of a stand-in, digital effects and the cobbling together of dialogue from previous episodes. Similarly, a key scene (pun intended) in the film "Gladiator" comes together with the aid of previously shot footage of Oliver Reed that had been intended for another scene (Reed passed away before filming of the Ridley Scott epic concluded). In that case, his entire body was planted in the brief scene and his lines were delivered by an impersonator.

With regard to whether or not it is unethical, I think that it depends on a few circumstances. But chief among them is whether or not the use of CGI and other effects negatively alters or detracts from the perception of the actor and the character he/she is playing on screen by the audience. For instance, if the producers used the CGI version of Ledger's character to say/do things that are wildly inconsistent with the character as created by Ledger, this could be perceived as being unethical. Similarly, if the CGI character did things on screen that we know the actor abhored in real life (for the sake of argument, lets pretend that Ledger never drank or smoked on film or in real life yet Gilliam wanted to use CGI to make him appear to undertake these habits) this too would represent an ethical lapse.

Lastly, a comment on your use of "Dark Horizons" as a source. While I have nothing against bloggers and amateur news hounds in the entertainment industry or any other, I do think that you must carefully select your sources, and double-check them when you get a piece of news from them. While DH actually had the story about Ledger right, they've also made the mistake of publishing many false stories or stories that constituted little more than rumor in the past. (So when you get a nugget of info from DH or AICN.com, its worth taking a minute to search for the item on Google News and see what reputable sources are offering coverage.) With this column/blog of yours, you are representing a mainstream media outlet... in some capacity, anyway. You want to make certain that you don't create a situation where it ends up with mud on its masthead, figuratively speaking.

Keep up the good work, Mike.

Adendum to my previous comment, re: fact-checking.

Twenty years ago, my high school journalism teacher told me something I've never forgotten.

"If your mother tells you she loves you," said the teacher, "Check your facts."

I think the film maker should consider the family and ask their opinion. If it is a memorial to the actor, then let his family make the final decision. Any money made from this film should be shared with his remaining immediate family. That's my opinion!

What happened to the comments that were here? Why were they deleted?