I think it's incredibly disrespectful to try to bring back the dead for a movie for profit like this or for whatever. Just let the dead be dead and rest in peace
Studios don't want to take risks any more. They want a guaranteed return on their investment. The movie business is less Hollywood Boulevard and more Wall Street nowadays. Pay attention to the opening credits next time you go to a theater. A few years ago, you'd see the logo for one, maybe two companies that worked on the film. Now, it's six or seven or eight different production companies all investing, to spread the risk out in case of a flop. And you know what they say about too many cooks....
I have started to collect and save some digital copies of classic movies, because I'm very scared at how the craze for "4k remastered" (often by IA) is ruining different aspects of some movies. I'm afraid that will be all that's left and we will lose originals at some point. Please, save your classics.
If the actor signs off on it who tf cares? Selling your soul is a choice. You cant play the ignorance card bc this whole idea of using likeness into perpetuity has been around longer than the internet has been around. Its gonna look insane until it improves. I think if it is used tastefully it can work tremendously. That being said the people that have real talent are a drop in the bucket to whats offered by most. We will continuously served slop until someone comes in and changes the game and it suddenly becomes more palatable, eventually the standard, then we move onto something else when this becomes obsolete. Also in the case of a human playing an android, it kinda makes perfect sense. The copy will only appear less human than the actor and lend more to the performance. The actor isnt acting human at all, so using AI to encapsulate a robot that has a human appearance that is soulless works perfectly in this context. In the case of nic cage's superman, it was against his intentions to include a scene never filmed where he wasnt asked or given the full picture of how his likeness would be used.
Having deepfake Ian Holm in the new Alien movie was the worst part of the film. Well, that and the constant inorganic insertion of famous lines from the other movies. I liked it otherwise.
This is becoming a pet peeve for me similar to another Hollywood pet peeve of mine that involves CGI: eliminating real life midgets. Like why is Hollywood getting rid of real life midgets in film and instead just hiring regular size actors and using CGI for them instead? Reminds of me of the whole getting rid of casting young, newer actors because using deepfakes are much easier.
The makeup point....the physical makeup is easy to do to make an actor look older. However, you try and make someone aged 70 look 30 with makeup...aint happening.
There’s no way to make an older person look younger with make up. All of your examples are of younger people having prosthetics put on them to make them look older. They still do this. They didn’t get an older actor to play aged Captain America in Endgame, or try to use CGI, they just put make up and prosthetics on Chris Evans. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work the other way around. You can’t put make up on Hugh Jackman now and make him look like he did back in 1998. Practical is better in many cases, but there are many cases, very critical ones, where CGI is vastly superior. The Luke Skywalker deep fake in Book of Boba Fett was excellent. I honestly forgot I was watching a CGI render and just felt like Luke Skywalker was back… It was so good I stopped thinking about the fact that it was a deep fake. I’ve even been able to convince my eyes that clips I know for a fact are actually just plain video of a person (even footage I shot myself) are deep fakes by focusing on whether or not the mouth movements look realistic and the facial muscle movements. I understand there are some people that are just anti-CGI, not because it’s inherently bad (because I could do the same thing with practical effects and cherry pick the worst examples to make it look bad) but because they just don’t like it… but the reality is that the practical options for many visual effects, particularly with modern films, would look awful if they tried them in place of proper CGI. Roundly dismissing technology out of some sort of spite is foolhardy…The true artist and professional uses the best tool for the job.
I totally agree, I love how far CGI can go, but in my experience, I just feel like de-aging or bring back dead actors, especially this one, is soulless and cuts me off from the immersion.
I tend to chafe at subjective and nebulous descriptions like “soulless”, especially in the context of art criticism. What seems soulless and empty to one person can often be inspirational and moving to another, that’s the nature of artistic expression. Using words like that implies a spiritually or qualitatively inferior status to aspects of creative expression that are inherently personal and subject to individual interpretation and appreciation. It’s unnecessarily divisive and most often fosters an environment of conflict and confrontation, as opposed to reasoned observations and a collaborative exchange of ideas and perspectives.
Completely forgettable movie, its well made, but it has nothing new to offer and if you add the awful CGI resurrection of Ian Holm and the homages, well, it didn't worked for me.
Let's just not do it at all, right? Let’s never develop realistic characters or VFX. Because clearly, innovation is a terrible idea. Sure, this technology is used to create fully imagined characters too, but let’s just ignore that part. Instead, you’re throwing shade at the entire cinema industry based on your personal bias. What about all the VFX artists, character designers, mathematicians, and physicists who’ve poured their creativity and knowledge into making this possible? All of that math and effort just to be dismissed because it’s not ‘perfect’ enough. Is the tech flawless? No. Sometimes, it’s honestly kind of rough. But that doesn't change the fact that your critique disregards the hard work of countless people who are pushing the boundaries of what’s possible. Also, let’s be real... throwing out random, biased hot takes every 10 seconds and speaking on behalf of 'everyone' doesn’t make your argument any stronger. Weak video, and frankly, a disrespectful take. As for the actors involved, they have options for how their image is used, and many families probably appreciate the continued royalties. So, let’s not pretend it’s some big moral catastrophe when it's actually far more nuanced.
Well that's not the subject of the video, I'm not talking about the people doing their jobs properly, I'm talking about using someone's image without their consent, and not even asking the realtives in some cases. Christopher Reeve's family was disguted to see his image represented in The Flash movie. And I do mention that it's incredible technology, but the subject is do we need CGI on actors faces, that's it. And not once I'm talking on behalf of everyone, as this video is simply a personal opinion.
I really don't understand why people make such a fuss over this. I think it's neat from a continuity standpoint. I was delighted to see Tarkin in Rogue One. I liked seeing Egon in Ghostbusters. It's not disrespecting the actor, if anything it's an homage to a beloved character they brought to life. People just look for stuff to complain about.
I don't see it like an homage. They're trying to get the technology to a place where it's believable that Peter Cushings is still performing as Tarkin. But we know it's not Cushings. That's a multi-billion dollar company leveraging the likeness of man that the audience has already formed a connection with, animating it without his involvement or express consent, and profiting from it. From another perspective, there is an actor giving their labor to Disney by providing the motion capture performance of Tarkin, only to have them superimpose the likeness of Cushings over him, robbing the audience of the opportunity to form a connection with that actor. The only reason this is being done is that some analysts over at Disney corporate determined that Peter Cushing's likeness is somehow valuable enough to the commercial success of a Star Wars movie that they would rather go to all the trouble to animate this dead man's face than just have another actor take on the character of Tarkin. It kind of tells me that they don't really care to entice the audience with an emotional acting performance, they just want to make sure they can get the same face on screen that was successful last time, even if it diminishes the quality of the experience and crosses complicated ethical boundaries. The man died in 1994. He could not possibly have understood at the time what could be done 20+ years later with his image.
It's definitely complaining 😉 But that's what cinema is, something to debate about. Obviously, I loved Rogue One and Alien Romulus, but these two little things are for me not important for the movie and we could have gotten new characters.
This is a remake of ALIEN 4 , it was just as bad , the real animatronics looked really bad like something from a 60 year old ITS A SMALL WORLD at Disneyland.....They have worn out like large Marge's panties the female protagonist so much it's a joke and a disappointment at the same time.....They can terraform a planet yet they need a canary to take into a coal mine to die yet they don't have a reader that can detect this gas if you can terraform a planet? They made the xenophobes mouth look so toy like compared to every single Alien game or movie before this heap of steaming good guy dung.. Andy looked like he was constipated and let out a small squeaker fart every time he had to answer a question or heard something .. the ending like I said was completely ALIEN Resurrection, and in my opinion was golden compared to this cr@p I would have rather watched the making of Prometheus than Romulus.... and the fact that they had horrible CG on Android and crew was horrific
@@TomGuezo They probably used it for a kind of “shock” value to get people talking about it. When I first heard about the movie … I kinda rolled my eyes and was like “well … ok, I guess I’ll go see it” . But WOW!! Was I wrong?!? I thought it was GREAT!!!!
Ash was an android, they are manufactured and there are multiple copies of the same model. Did you think that each and every android was individually handcrafted and unique? The actual issue is how Alien gestation went from taking around a day to only a few minutes after impregnation, because the writers are incredibly lazy and just wanted to rush to chestbursting monsters so they could add more of the cheap jumpscares because modern child audiences believe being scary movies are supposed to be all about being momentarily startled instead of slowly creating a growing sense of horror, and they just want something to make them jump slightly when they briefly glance up from their smartphones at the film they're "watching." (That's why the jumpscares are carefully timed to come every few minutes to coincide with people occasionally tearing their eyes away from Twitter.) Instead of taking time to build _actual tension and horror_ like in the original movie. I'm sure they wish they could have added a scary clown or demon nun jumping at the camera if they could have.
