From the literature review, it is clear that World Wide XR is successful due to the human connection of nostalgia-based around the ‘happy’ memories of audience members.  These feelings have a connection to the stars and celebrities of Hollywood, both new and old. 
Now, focussing on my own findings that were discovered throughout my dissertation, I will underpin my results to the analysis of the literature review. Firstly looking at a survey and the answers/replies received, I want to see a contemporary audience connection to the nostalgia marketing discovered. As per my dissertation reads, 

 

“It was clear from the initial research into the advert that there are split opinions into the reuse and CGI production of a passed celebrity. This investigation allowed for the comparison of media opinions written in the press, to audience reactions against theories.  From this case study, it can be concluded that nostalgia does sell to an audience, moreover, it proves that celebrity endorsement still works as a successful marketing tool even with passed celebrities.”  (Newlands, 2019). 

 

Although most of my findings did support the notions presented in the literature review, there was also the argument of whether it is humane/ok to keep reusing these images of passed celebrities, and whether it made audience members feel uncomfortable or not.  One participant commented, “I’ve honestly never thought about this. I think it’s really cool to pay tribute to these stars but when you think about in the perspective that these stars have no say or right over their image being used, it can actually be quite uncomfortable and almost feels wrong?” (participant, 2020). This returns back to points made about Audrey Hepburn starring in a chocolate advert, would she of said yes to this during her prime time, or have companies like World Wide  XR taken advantage of technology to simply push and sell every commodity to a buying audience. 

This is an ongoing debate across many media channels about whether the reuse of passed celebrity images is okay or not, these can be found in the links below. But to take some quotes from them, a film blog allows users to report on the topics, one commenting, “It was only a matter of time before technology became inexpensive enough to exploit our long and not so long dead legends and it seems that day is here. Being dead is officially no longer an excuse to stop earning.” (Mhatt, 2019). 

​

There are clear arguments for both for and against the use of passed celebrity imagery. The first is that it allows fans to relive their happy memories of cinema at home with the sensation of nostalgia. Another interesting point about my research carried out about nostalgia is the fact that young people as well experience this when seeing an old Hollywood icon, even though they were not born early enough to experience their prime. One candidate in my survey explained it as, “not necessarily nostalgic because I’m not from their era, but there’s a loving kind of commodification of their identities going on. It’s always reminiscent and respectful of the icons. It might be our modern way of showing appreciation for these people through capitalism - we put clothing with their faces on, quotes on notepads etc.” (Participant #4 in Newlands, 2020.). Thus the market for these are clearly able to continue out for the future generations and is not just limited to generations such as the baby boomers, as predicted. 

​

To compare the arguments presented throughout this report,  keeping the stars of yesterday alive on our screens today does propose both questions of morality and respect. When the stars pass, do we allow that career to rest as well, and only screen their work that they consented to do, or do we keep their Hollywood dreams alive and use the technology of today to keep their iconic name alive for generations to come. In a way, this is how nostalgia through the generations has continued. From my prior research, most young audience members remember stars from being on commodities, whereas the elder generations remember them for their films. 

​

In a way, it is flattering for the want and demand of these stars, and the works of World Wide XR are able to provide audiences’ what they want. It is not necessarily a bad thing to want to please audiences and make them happy to fell that sensation of nostalgia that is if it is done respectfully and the companies do not get carried away with technology, which is the fear of audiences. No one wants to see the iconic stars of yesterday be morphed into something less glamours of themself to fit into today’s contemporary media setting.

With all examples of quotes and literature taken into account, this contemporary topic is something that will be ongoing with the rapid and constant evolution of technology within media. I set out to discover the fine line of when CGI of passed celebrity imagery being used goes too far to make them fit into a contemporary setting. A company like World Wide  XR allows and enables new content to be created featuring the stars of yesterday, that is undeniably appreciated across mass audiences.  But there are moments where this power can be abused, and therefore needs to be monitored to ensure that the media industry does not abuse the imagery that World Wide XR can provide, and respects the celebrities past career before they create a new one for them.