I think there actually was merit to using the old footage.. It was giving an example of the reach of change that could in the past and connecting all the previous universes and versions
I’m glad you used your channel to address this practice. For every one example where the creatives have used technology to fulfill the wishes of a departed actor or create a respectful homage to their life and work, there are a dozen examples of it being utilized as an expensive gimmick. I too wish they would knock it the hell off. It’s often just creepy and weird, and clearly a play to make additional money.
I think it’s fine de-aging an actor is fine, if the actor is alive partaking in the process. Like a Mark Hamil, with Mando and Book of Boba Fett. But I think recasting is the way to go in the future.
@@bobross1829Then comes the difficultly of recasting certain parts, take how Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul were digitally de-aged in their appearance in Better Call Saul. You can’t just recast parts with characters as big and beloved as that, people are going to notice.
@@ItsJr I disagree. I do not get the fear of recasting parts in movies. Aaron Paul is not "that old". And Cranston just had a cameo. But when the guy is over 70 and you want the character to continue in a major way, just recast it. James Bond lives by that. It is also way chaeper.
They see everything and everyone as a commodity to be repackaged and sold. And I don't think 'the estate agrees' is valid consent. Actors now should have posthumous rights written into contracts from the start. Actors who never explicitly sold the rights to their likeness should be off limits.
The earliest movie that resurrected dead people were in Forrest gump with the president's that Forrest meets in that movie. but the first instance for me that a dead actor is brought back to like is that one episode from tales from the crypt with Humphrey Bogart staring in an episode despite the actor being dead for several years at that point.
Are they just paying the estates of the actors when they bring them back? I kinda hate this as it's going to phase out new actors... will companies start BUYING the rights to entire humans, voices and all? Idk man again, I kinda hate it
@@heavyspoilers I think Marvel understands that their fans would find that in poor taste. It's weird that DC fans don't find this meta bullshit in poor taste.
Wait I thought George reeves and Adam West were done with archival footage, did they CG them to!? I thought they only used CGI for Christopher reeve because he’s easily the most famous and beloved of the cameos they showed in that scene
As you said, it’s about creating a false sense of nostalgia. Let the dead rest, don’t try to squeeze every penny out of their talent, to which they never consented to. It’s a matter of decency in the face of Hollywood greed. It’s almost as if Hollywood treats actors as property. What’s next? Putting copyright on actors?
no its them believing you're stupid enough to be satisfied with this. Its the same reason their form of inclusion is skin swapping vs giving those ethnic groups proper IPs. The quickest buck with the least resistance. No Way Home was the exact same except you can enjoy that film if you turn your brain off.
False sense of nostalgia? I think if it makes you feel nostalgic then its not false. Your upset they used someone who other wise you wouldnt see and gave christopher reeves more shine than hes had in 40 years. Let the dead rest? Okay then throw away the pictures of your dead loved ones and dont talk about them today. Lets be real if people were portraying you as SUPERMAN even after your gone thats a blessing.
Honestly it felt a bit weird and out of the uncanny valley, I’m sure the families signed off on these cameos but I still get many people feeling icky about their inclusions. I think they should just stick to having alive people cameo because using dead people can seem unethical.
One of my biggest complaints about this stuff is that it becomes the topic of conversation instead of the actual movie. I liked Flash. I had a lot of fun watching it. These scenes could have just been stock footage showing glimpses of the other universes, but instead they chose to create scenes. That choice as well as the Ezra Miller incidents are causing people to skip a movie, or to just go in with a predetermined conclusion. They see the negative stuff they heard about and they reaffirm the opinion they formed even before viewing the movie. In my opinion the same thing happed to Solo. Solo isn’t a bad film, it’s just not a film people wanted at the time.
I saw *"Solo"* just recently and it's not a bad inclusion in the Star Wars universe. Plus, you had the real negative ire aimed at Kathleen Kennedy, which was uncalled for.
Well, I commend you for watching and enjoying the movie (Flash) by following the character, not the person. I couldn't, I can't stand the dude. However, as always, whatever is published about Ezra Miller should be taken with a grain of salt, he's probably not the psycho articles/videos make him out to be. I don't think a dead person can care (to go back to the topic), so I see no harm... except for the relatives and fans. It is disrespectful only to them, yet disrespect is disrespect, especially out of greed.
I think going forward, actors should be able to sign off on wether or not they are willing to be in films posthumously. Payments for these appearances going to family and/or charities. It could easily continue AND respect the actors wishes. But I do agree, without something like this in place, we’re trusting studios to be respectful of these people, instead of the actors or their families.
I believe this is the case now. I’m sure I read that James Earl Jones has said he won’t voice anymore dialogue for any future Star Wars projects but has signed over the rights to use everything that he was already recorded up to now to be used to recreate and simulate his voice.
@@mysticnutmeg I’m fairly sure I remember that as well. I’m just saying it should happen with everyone. Part of the contract for every role. Although, now that I’ve said that, I can see how muddy it could get quickly. With big studios making new actors feel pressured to sign away their likenesses in order to land roles. 🤷🏻♂️ Regardless, there has to be a smart way to handle these things.
@@G3T3MGON I know, it’s gross. I’ve signed something similar just to be an extra in Alita. Actors have a Union. Certainly there’s something they can do to make sure the actors under their umbrella can get a better deal than “in perpetuity”.
I'm pretty sure that is a part of the SAG contract renegotiations happening right now cause studios own an actor's likeness as a specific character. Like, the studios don't own Harrison Ford's likeness, but Ford as Han Solo, they own that likeness
@@keithsummers_exactly. It's their face and voice in that role, as that character. Not their face and voice going to the grocery store or spending time with their real life families, it's only in character. Which I imagine that Hollywood contracts most likely stipulate, and if they don't they will soon.
@@keithsummers_Yes. The marketing materials are for films they were in while alive. Hence they agreed to their likeness being used for those purposes. Simulating an entirely new performance without the actor’s involvement or consent is completely different.
I thought the Harold Ramis one was a very touching tribute, which I think he would've approved of. All the ingredients were right & it's charged with emotion. I don't object in principal to resurrecting vintage characters but using those who died prematurely in tragic circumstances just seems tactless. Particularly when it's to prop up such a piss-poor movie is with a lead actor who should have been dropped regardless of being a criminal, he's just shit.
The director telling people he wanted the special effects to look off is like when I tell passengers my car is supposed to make that sound.... it's not
I agree completely. They really need to stop because it's getting creepy and inappropriate. It's ok to recast and we are all adults here knowing that sometimes tragedy happens. Getting people to have fake nostalgic moments just to get us to see the movie is inappropriate and they're just trying to make money off of our feelings. I have a feeling that at some point, the consent issue might come back to haunt Hollywood for doing this. I'm glad I didn't go see this in the theater for this and many other reasons.
I think Tarkin, even though it looked wonky, was key to the plot for Rogue One. It provided context and helped flesh out the universe. They *could* have done without, but I think it was better for it. The Superman ones: no. That's just bad. But I've been done with superhero movies for a while now, so I didn't even know this was a thing.
I understand where you're coming from. However, if any character is that important, then recast the part. I was born in '78 and grew up with Star Wars. I would personally rather see Tarkin be recast with an actor who is close enough to Peter Cushing than to have "obvious CGI Ghost Peter Cushing" so many years after his passing.
Very good points Paul, I hadn't even thought about it from this point of view. I remember them once talking about being able to put the likes of Michael Jackson and Tupac in concerts as if they were still alive. I somehow missed they started doing that in movies too. Damn, that's disturbing to thing they're forced to work even after death. Oh and speaking of Black Mirror, before Jane is Aweful, they also did a similar thing starring Miley Cyrus in Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too, which is also relevant to this video.
It does not look like many people disagree below that there are many recent incidents of gratuitous use of deceased individuals. Someone else noted that it will only become more common, and people like us who find it icky will become more uncommon over time. The next generation will think nothing much of the likeness borrowing.
Recasting is always going to be my preferred option. Passing the torch to a new actor, a new generation to tell new stories ensures those tales get to live on in a way that cgi and clever voice acting/modulation can't. You get a new actor to love, get to watch them hone their craft to bring their best to the audience. As nice as it is to have that nostalgic connection to faces we know, it robs new or overlooked talent of a chance to make a name for themselves. Chadwick wanted T'Challa to be recast. I'm sure there are others that would have loved to see their mantles pass to new talent too.
I remember for a short period in the music world during major concert festivals, several deceased artists were "brought back to life" via hologram and the creative use of previous audio clips spliced together to interact with the live artist on stage. It went away after about a year or so because many concertgoers were not impressed by it, plus, the technology skyrocketed the tour budget, but the gimmick didn't increase ticket sales. This is a fad for the moment, but when studios realize how much it raises a budget of a movie with very little to no payoff at the box office, it will go away as it did in the music industry.
I don’t think so. The Luke Skywalker deepfakes showed that one person can do a much more impressive job at creating digital doubles than the vastly more expensive techniques used previously in big budget Hollywood features, e.g. Rogue One. On top of that saving, the stand-in actor that the deepfake is built on is also much cheaper to have on set than the A-list actor that is being represented. So you get a highly marketable actor’s likeness at a much lower price than their appearance would normally cost using vfx techniques that are also (comparatively) cheap. As the technology improves it will only be more convincing. Whether audiences will want to watch the ‘ghost’ of a young Harrison Ford in the 250th instalment of the Indiana Jones franchise is yet to be seen, but studios won’t stop doing it due to the costs of the technology.
The Carrie Fischer one was ok and i liked it....but when it comes to others that have died years before was not fair to those actors and sad the families agreed to this Adam West was a line crossed for me!
I didn't have a problem with the cameos. I thought it was more of a celebration of the DC universe on the big and small screen as opposed to nostalgia bait. And who knows? Maybe they'll inspire members of the audience to seek out the Christopher Reeve Superman movies or the George Reeves and Adam West TV shows. I don't see that as a bad thing. As for using CGI replications of actors who haven't given consent. I don't have a problem with this in relation to a cameo (although I wonder why they just didn't use archival footage.) I'm not an actor but I would assume that one fear of an actor is being forgotten (seems to be a theme in a lot of movies I've seen) and these cameos suddenly put them back centre stage in the public's eye. Isn't that what every actor wants? To be remembered? Of course, as long as it's done tastefully.
I feel like the use of Christopher Reeve is exceptionally egregious, especially given what he went through in the last years of his life. It has to be such a slap in the face to his son to see him standing again, after he helped care for Christopher after his accident. I cannot imagine the gut punch of seeing that. I have to agree with the sentiment here. If an actor signed on for a film, but was unable to complete it, and there's enough footage that can be used to complete it, then that's fair. Otherwise, leave them alone.
I completely disagree with the idea of it being a negative. For starters if the family is okay with it nobody really has the right to argue it’s in bad taste. Secondly, actors do the job with one large goal of it being recognition. Becoming immortalized so to speak. I doubt any of the people shown would have had issue with having their image used. And to reiterate there is zero chance that WARNER BROS was able to do it without the agreement of the estates. Who are we to tell Christopher Reeves children their father shouldn’t be shown in a DC movie bc the cgi isn’t great. What’s infinitely worse imo is the studio using a CGI amalgamation of a Jay Garrick who wasn’t played by any actor.
I think it sucks, in all instances except when an actor dies when the movie is close to complete. The ending Furious 7 is the only movie that did it well. But when the character, like Tarkin, is unnecessary, just recast the actor or write around it. The deceased actors for Supes in The Flash. In it, it came off as jingling keys in front of a cat.
I feel the exact opposite. My little cousin had no idea who Christopher reeves even was before seeing this. Its continuing his legacy. People cry about everything today
Is it his legacy? Really? Acting isn't just being there and taking directions. Reeve would have had input into his role - without that 2-way process it isn't him at all, it's a waxwork.
@@jacobturnerart what people remember you for is your legacy. How people remember you is your legacy and guess what yes acting 90% of the time is stand there and take directions
yeah the entire point of having a director is to literally give directions - not just to the actors but the lighting and sound people, the camera guys etc - many directors take it one step further and pick up the camera themselves! people only see the actors on the screen so they assume what they're seeing is mostly something the actors are responsible for - it's not you don't literally see them on the screen but it's mostly the director, not the actors, who "made" that film the only other people with more control are producers - which is why you see so many actors now who have producer credits next to their name - so they actually CAN have some more say!
God damnit... Cant watch this until we watch The Flash... You know that movie flopped so why?!?!?! I have to wait until HBOMax? *COMEON MAN!!!* On a scale of 1-10 how much of a spoiler 🤔 Like if the spoiler is just that MK is in the movie, ya we know that. But if you're spoiler is like Brainiac is in the movie, then yea, lets skip this vid for now.
When i sit down to watch a movie, my brain makes an agreement that everything im going to experience is FAKE. So i just roll with whatever is placed in front of me. Bad CGI, green screens, de-aging…🙈.. doesn’t distract in the slightest. Often, i have to have a UA-cam point it out to me after the fact. Im basically Cypher from the matrix. Maybe i have a lack of respect for the dead 🤷🏽.
I want them to stop this, too, but they won't, Paul. Hollywood doesn't give a f&(# what we think, they just want money. Charles Dance should have been Grand Moff Tarkin in SW Rogue One. But, Hollywood gonna Hollywood.
Don't have a problem about it at all. If all know estates or current family give consent (only, ONLY if the actor is shown in positive way) and used on a case by case basis, sure.
I actually thoroughly enjoyed the movie and didn't mind what they did I just wish the CGI was better but I enjoyed it 7/10... Would actually watch a sequel
Same. I feel like people are picking it apart because they don’t want to like it. “The CGI really took me out of the movie!” …. Yeah? Well, does the shoddy VFX in movies like the original Clash of the Titans pull you out, or can you just watch, enjoy, and understand they were able to convey the images and message they were attempting…. Even if it does look bad at times?
Why couldn’t have they used any other older dc media with the actors still alive? The cw flash show did this really good with flash from the 90s show and smallvile. Their likenesses was used for just a cheap cameo and tbh it didnt even work imo, the reveal of the colliding worlds as the solution to the equation was out of left field and half of the audience didn’t really cared.
I think at first they write the planned upcoming movies around the actors who pass during the progress of filming a series and since they couldn't fulfill their role they bring them back as a tribute.
Well in the end everything is finite .that guy jebus lived all the years ago and he will be forgotten. Everything ends. So it's kinda nice they even do a throw back I guess.
It is a delicate balance. If any possible surviving family gives permission and they respect the character and it's mainly a cameo for a nod then I am more at ease.. and at much better graphics lol.
I can see your point of view of Paul. Personally I feel nothing for the Cgi “cameo actors “ so it doesn’t sting. But if marvel tried to do this in 50 years with Cgi Hugh Jackman or Tobey Magiure, yeah I imagine that would piss me off
I think with the family's permission, it's more reasonable to accept. They often get re-introduced as cartoons, so I don't have a huge issue with it all. If my late wife was brought back in a film, I would find it difficult, but I would eventually be fine with being able to see and hear her again as long as it wasn't disrespectful in any way. Ultimately, I would want final approval.
in rogue one and rise of skywalker, i was fine with it. ghostbusters afterlife i was fine with it plus, it hit close to home for me since the movie came out a couple months after losing my mom to cancer april of 2021. but, these being in the flash movie felt very unwanted. i was actually really surprised by it as well and was like, WTF ? hollywood really should stop doing these things cause it feels like a disrespect towards those who have passed on.
i agree and the thing about gb afterlife as paul said bill, dan,and ernie in the scene with egon was all unacted they were speaking to how they felt about harold, it was a genuine reaction
So I haven't seen the Flash but have seen and heard about these cameos. What I don't understand is why they don't use footage from the series instead of CGIing them from the dead. You still get your cameo and it's not weird/unethical. Everyone (except Nic Cage but he's still alive) had a movie or show, just show a scene or 2 and there it is. No need to parade them with your own PS2 creation
I liked the cameos, it shows that all DC shows and movies are part of the DCEUs multiverse. The Nicolas Cage cameo actually made me wanna see his version lol Also seeing Clooney come back as Bruce Wayne is pretty cool, especially since it appears that Barry is now stuck in that Clooney universe
The biggest problem I had with Tarkin is the urge to make it resemble Cushing. Whatever happened to just recasting? That actor that was playing what ended up being just the model was perfectly damn fine, amazing in fact. To me, the most annoying thing isn't resurrecting the dead as much as ignoring the living.
I think this was kind of the point of those hideous CGI cameos. If it *was* a deliberate aesthetic choice, it was genius. Shoving nostalgia down our throats while Barry #1 screams "STOP! STOP! CAN'T YOU SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING!?" Reboots and resurrections forever until the uncanny valley has trapped us all in a nightmare of lost futures and a "Children of Men" scenario where no new "babies" (ie: cultural forms, artworks) are being born. This was a resolutely anti-nostalgia film. Even that one little move with the can of tomatoes requires Barry #1 to be punished. Wanna still change one little thing and save your Dad? Ok, fine. Here's the worst Batman ever! Fk you. Unlike the silly MCU where there are no consequences, this film is bleak, politically savvy, and far more mature in its love for teenage nihilism - a more seasoned and jaded slop than the MCU. It's still slop. Just better slop than the MCU. We should be flattered that the director thought we pigs had the intelligence to differentiate between the two varieties of slop on offer.
meh actors LIVE for this shit - Christopher Reeve was desperate to get out of his wheelchair SO HE COULD PLAY SUPERMAN AGAIN if we were talking about "ordinary" people you may have a point but ACTORS are motivated first and foremost by the very idea of IMMORTALITY through cinema...
I can't believe, folks are complaining about the graphics....and sure they could've not included any cameos but THEY WENT BIG, but to complain about the graphics? To say the CGI was anything we see on consoles, really? I don't remember textures being as good as what we saw in the Flash....This all stems from Reeve's face looking janky...and babies that can't handle said jank...I'm just glad we get to see a decent DC movie finally...
I'm a MASSIVE Superman fan, and I saw the movie early on Monday before it was released. I've been talking it up to anyone who will listen. I've had absolutely no problem with them using Chris's likeness, same with the non-existent Superman Lives scene, or George Reeves, or Adam We... He's super dead. You weren't going to get him to film a cameo because, he's fucking in the ground... If his family is okay with it, which I assume they would be, who cares...
THANK YOU HEAVY SPOILERS! Ever since Rogue One, I have been terrified that audiences wouldn't push back against it and we would slowly but surely get to a point where corporations shamelessly "revive" the dead to make money off their image. Honeslty even in The Mandalorian I hated how they used Luke because I knew it would lead to them using it more and more blatantly even if (God hope this doesn't happen soon) Mark Hamil himself passes away. It should have ended years ago and I'm disappointed that it has gotten to this point.
Instead of George Reeve Superman, it should’ve been Max Fleisher’s Superman cartoon. Instead of Chris Reeves Superman, it should’ve been Brandon Routh as Superman. It was a big missed opportunity that they didn’t get to showcase the Superman for the new DCU or show some characters or scenes from the DCAU.
Your opinion is over-reaching….I do understand from you’re coming from, but to me is you LOOKING for something to complain about 🤷🏾♂️ You’re better than this….be better 😉
What the Flash did feels egregious because a) they literally brought them back just for cheap fanservice. They don't affect the plot in any way, they're just there to sell tickets. And b) George Reeves was upset about the fact that he couldn't get more roles outside of Superman, and it's believed that this played a factor in his eventual death. It's straight up disrespectful for WB to dig him up from the grave just to throw more cameos in our face. What's even worse is that there's actors who are actually alive that could be in the movie. Why not bring in Brandon Routh or Tyler Hoechlin's Superman? What about Grant Gustin or John Wesley Shipp to play their versions of Barry Allen? I doubt Christian Bale would come back for a project like this, but certainly you could find some way to squeeze in Joseph Gordon Levitt as a homage to The Dark Knight movies to play his version of Batman or Robin or Nightwing, or whoever he was supposed to end up being in that universe. Not only would they have avoided disrespecting deceased actors, but they could also utilize those cameos in interesting ways that would require a still-living, present actor to be there, as opposed to having a voiceless Christopher Reeves Superman just standing there.
Well, like with all forms of technology, it really depends on how the technology and methods are used. Speaking on behalf of SAG-AFTRA actors, the main problem is ensuring that actors and featured journalists get residual income from the reuse and recycling of their likeness onto other projects, even if the studio does not legally need permission. However, referring to The Flash specifically, I actually thought that it was reasonable to reuse footage of older/ancient DC Comics films in The Flash during that scene in the temporal void with all the colorful bubbles and whatnot. The bubbles were really just artistic images of other DC universes that OUR world has seen or could have become real (in the case of Nic Cage.) Nostalgia is fine if it actually works with the mechanics of the story and the rules of that world... I know that I keep bringing "mechanics" up a lot in these comments, but that is such a vital part of what makes or breaks the storytelling of these universes, whether its DC, Marvel, whatever Universal tried to do with monsters, or even the Mission Impossible franchise. If the nostalgia, CGI, deepfake, or whatever it is along those lines works with the mechanics of the story, then it may work well with audiences... But if it looks something like low-resolution babies (yes, that includes you, Twilight,) then audiences are gonna trash the film just based on that alone.
When I saw this in the theater I liked it, BUT I thought they were strictly using archive footage like the clips you used in your video. In one of the anniversary episodes of Dr Who, they used archive footage of the previous Doctors to have them all work together and it was brilliant. But using CGI, and bad CGI, is expensive, unnecessary, and creepy. I don't know the actor from Rogue One, but I did liked what they did there. So I don't think we should say no more across the board, but first ask 'is it necessary' and 'can it be done respectfully.' Don't let a few bad apples spoil the bunch.
No mention of the Arnold CGI on Terminator Genysis or Salvation? Or Michael Douglas in Ant-Man? This CGI-Deepfake is a double edged sword. We can bring back actors we love and simply carry on their likeness or it can ruin their legacy’s and be overused
I think you make a very reasonable case. I also think that that very brief appearances of these old actors in their DC superhero roles could also just be seen as a tribute to these actors that we knew and loved in the past. (I haven't seen "The Flash", so I can't speak about the cameos in any detail, so I might be wrong.) I think it's no different than musician's including a small snatch of another song as a little nod to it (like Yes making a nod towards the Beatles by quoting "Day Tripper" briefly when they covered "Every Little Thing"... sorry for not being able to think of an example less than 50+ years old). Having a CGI Peter Cushing reprise his role in "Rogue One" is a whole 'nother thing, as you said, and in that case I think we should only do that when the actor in question has given his or her permission for their likeness to be used. Of course, Peter Cushing might have made that agreement with respect to his likeness being used in cartoons or toys, and no one expected at the time that a CGI version of him would be possible some day... or perhaps they did, and Lucasfilm really does have contractual permission to do what they did. Surely the actor's estate would have complained and/or sued if that wasn't the case, and they didn't like it. I would believe that any actor in the last 30 years or more would have had the opportunity to make this decision, especially in the case of an IP like Star Wars, that was an early adopter of CGI characters. Peter Cushing died in 1994, so it's conceivable he gave his permission for his likeness to use used in this way specifically. Ditto Christopher Reeve. I think we can be certain that that's not the case for George Reeves.
I agree with you, I think there should be way less CGI in movies in general! Of course a 'Science Fiction Movie' is going to need CGI but I think you can limit it (like Interstellar or Dune), instead of de-aging they should re-cast! Just my thoughts...
I'm so glad I don't watch a lot of films anymore. My time is precious and I don't want to waste it on trash. Especially Hollywood films I avoid like the plague, however I only watch indie and European films. UA-cam videos I can "watch" while doing something else like washing up. ;)
I don't agree with the theory of "false nostalgia"? It's either nostalgic or it isn't? That's like saying "I suffer from false sadness". But while I think that your points about The Flash are valid, I did actually cheer to myself like a total utter bell-end when I saw Christopher Reeve even though the effects looked absolute utter shite. And to add insult to injury I watched it illegally on an iPad. Take that Hollywood.
I'm alright with this, when done well. Knew this was going to be a thing when commercials clipped actors and dancers (Fred Astaire dancing with a vacuum / John Wayne beer / Groucho Marks and others dancing with Paula Abdul for Coke) which were less about the actors legacy and more about pushing product on consumers. At least in movies and shows, a de-aged living or dead actor, or such opens up artists avenues, if done not solely for the cash grab. Doing it well, so you hardly see the CG is so key, that uncanny valley just is traumatic, but a great fake is transcending to see actors in youth or actors resurrected. Now go mop up some soda with a stick vacuum and have a beer, and take it easy pilgrim.
Morning, I think Plan 9 From Outer Space was the first movie to have an actor (Bela Lugosi?) die mid way through shooting and I think they had a gardener or someone stand in for the rest of the film, he was a foot taller and had to stoop and cover his face all the time, Jonny Depp starred in the movie Ed Wood about this. Plan 9 is supposed to be the worst movie ever made but I guess now Flash tops the list? I think you've made a good argument, overall there are legal and moral issues, if the actor dies mid-way through shooting and there's evidence that he would like the movie to have been finished and it's done tastefully (Oliver Reed was an absolute legend, Brandon Lee also, but in his case the death was on set, so not so sure they should have gone ahead on that one...), but yeah if it's ghoulish and there's evidence the actor resented the role (Superman, Tarkin) then it's just bizarre fan service that deserves a backlash.
Harold Ramis only "worked" because he was a ghost, which CGI has time and time again done tremendously well. You know what didn't work? His dialogue. Because there was none! And he has a _weirdly long_ amount of screen time for such a short scene. It's beyond distracting!
Unless someone SPECIFICALLY consents to having their likeness used even after they dead, then they HAVENT consented to their likeness being used even after they’re dead 🤷🏼♂️ An estate does not have the right to negotiate future use of a dead person’s likeness anymore than the estate has a right to reconfigure royalty arrangements made before a person dies, that’s basically creating a pretext to try and legitimize the stealing of a dead person’s identity for profit when everyone knows they’re dead, and since you can’t compensate a dead person, any proceeds amount to theft, theft being the taking of something that you know is not yours Let’s argue
I remember when cgi was new, and one of the things people were hyped for was bringing back dead stars. Like, wasn't there some commercial in the 90's with Bogart or something? I'm a heartless bastard though. For the Flash, I would have been playing across the DC-verse with every actor in history.
Well, I am 100% convinced we will get new Episodes of Star Trek TOS or something like it again at one point. Or Sean Connery Bond movies. And I am looking forward to the discussions about that.
Yes, besides being creepy there is real questions about just the ethics of using someone who is dead in your movie. They did not consent. Just because the Estate gave you consent might be legal, but morally? It is very questionable. The estate of someone who died maybe even decades ago do not care about the actors artistic integrity anymore, they just want some cash from a long dead relative. Especially like Peter Cushing in that new Star Wars movie. Is Gran Moff Tarkin really such a unique character they could not recast the part? He was a very minor character in the original star wars. It was very wrong and creepy
It certainly rides a line that I would hate for them to cross. It's like the hologram performances of dead musicians. But there are two major differences and one issue specific to this situation. First, they haven't made an entire film based upon using the likeness of a dead actor. Definitely crossing a line. Two, the actors likeness is an aspect of characters. So, for example, Peter Cushing's likeness was right on the line, or perhaps crossed it. I could argue for either side. But in this situation with the Flash, it is all about the characters. You took issue with it not being necessary for the film.... but it really was. The original story of Flash Point was all about how there are different universes with different characters. And those universes are a corner stone of the comics. We are supposed to respect every version of every character and their stories. Those 'cameos' held purpose. It's not the only time DC has done this. They did in the Arrow Verse as well. As separated as all of these stories are, they are all under one reality umbrella. So... I really don't take issue with the clips used in the Flash Point movie. They weren't forcing actors into a movie that they couldn't consent to. They were including the characters that belong to DC (to put it harshly), but more importantly belong to us. They have been giving us these characters nearly a hundred years now. It's not as simple as 'nostalgia bate' in this specific situation. It's sewing together the fabric of 100 years of story telling. (But there certainly is nostalgia too.)
People need to chill the F out.... Is not like they did something goofy or killed that version of the character. It's celebrating their legacy, of the audience who remembered George reeves? Now people will be exposed to that version. Seeing Christopher again got me crying because of how much I love his superman.
As cool as they think it is. It gives the audience of uneasiness . I remember the first time I ever saw this type of effect used it was for a bud wiser commercial featuring the long dead John Wayne. I'm not sure if it was early cgi or just archive footage remastered . What I d know is how it was played for laughs and it was not funny It was creepy and disrespectful. I felt the same way with grand moff tarkin. He looked like a doll. Which creeped me out even worse. If.. IF Hollywood continues do this at the very least they should provide for public display proof they have obtained permission from the stars estate ro do so. Even put it in the end credits prominently. But even that will never help with the feeling of just pure disquieting Ookiness of it. Plus I think its dis comfortimg on another level on which we all secretly dread the day when actors are permanently replaced by cgi. And just paid a flat fee for use of thier image. Then the computer takes over from there. Creatives should all dread that day from writers to actors...it's coming...it's already edged out so many jobs inclymuding some youtube narrators!
My issue with the scene in Flash is that unlike Rouge One where u can argue that it makes sense, this was completely and utterly pointless and was clear idiotic fan service. Also if you were gonna do fan service it would’ve made more sense like they did in the Spiderverse, if we saw different versions of Flash (Grant Gustin, John Wesley Ship) since they’re all connected through the speed force. That would’ve made much more sense than just more pointless character versions of Batman and Superman to get a quick cheer from the audience.
I felt like the Egon in Ghostbusters: Afterlife was very respectful but thats because it wasn’t bringing back Harold Ramis, it was bringing back the character of Egon.
I don't see the problem. Just like I don't see a problem with you showing clips from others as part of what you're doing. Permissions police stunt future work. Like imagine if you couldn't make biography of dead person because they can't give permission.
Wasn't Brandon Routh's Superman movie technically a sequel to the Christopher Reeve Superman movies? It's weird that they put Reeve in this movie when he was recasted. Plus I noticed that when Routh played Superman, he kind of looked like Reeve too.
With Tarkin they got permission from his estate and they had them supervise the VFX team and if they weren't able to perfect it his lines would have been given to other characters. This is when it dose work. With Leia in Episode 9 Billie Lourd gave them permission and said it was a beautiful idea. Again it worked. The Flash cameos wear just pointless.
They could have used Brandon Routh as he isn't doing much these days as the Arrowverse is over. And they already had Ben Affleck who played George Reeves/Superman in 'Hollywoodland.'
I see your point but I think the 🐈’s out of the 🛍️ and we are going to see more and more of this happening as the years start to roll on. Not saying it’s right or wrong, it is what it is. The Shakespeare photo is kind of funny but also brings up a point, should companies stop using the deceased’s images for profit when it comes to merchandise and in movies? Is CGI just a modern day photo/painting in the evolution of the art of visuals?
Great, great nephew.... more power to ya. Get paid as I have relinquished my likeness once I sign to a studio, active project or not. Further, we buy merchandise with the likeness of these people all the time, what's the difference there? We buy for nostalgia, studios cash grab, actors had no consent in the product. I get it the point, I respect the point, but at the same time.... meh.
For the Flash's unecessary legend cameos, they should've just gone with Tyler and Brandon Routh's Supermen instead, so simple and cheaper for the studio too, really don't get them.....
Obviously there's gonna be a lot of different thoughts on this so make sure you leave yours below on what you think Hollywood should and shouldn't do.
I think that maybe they should introduce a contract for using CGI to bring back people instead of just using their face
When i read the title in my notifications, i thought you were getting demonetized 😅
I think there actually was merit to using the old footage.. It was giving an example of the reach of change that could in the past and connecting all the previous universes and versions
I TOTALLY Agree with you, they need to stop!
I’m glad you used your channel to address this practice. For every one example where the creatives have used technology to fulfill the wishes of a departed actor or create a respectful homage to their life and work, there are a dozen examples of it being utilized as an expensive gimmick. I too wish they would knock it the hell off. It’s often just creepy and weird, and clearly a play to make additional money.
I think it’s fine de-aging an actor is fine, if the actor is alive partaking in the process. Like a Mark Hamil, with Mando and Book of Boba Fett. But I think recasting is the way to go in the future.
Nah, just re cast the part. It is creepy
@@bobross1829Then comes the difficultly of recasting certain parts, take how Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul were digitally de-aged in their appearance in Better Call Saul.
You can’t just recast parts with characters as big and beloved as that, people are going to notice.
@@ItsJr I disagree. I do not get the fear of recasting parts in movies. Aaron Paul is not "that old". And Cranston just had a cameo. But when the guy is over 70 and you want the character to continue in a major way, just recast it. James Bond lives by that. It is also way chaeper.
They see everything and everyone as a commodity to be repackaged and sold.
And I don't think 'the estate agrees' is valid consent. Actors now should have posthumous rights written into contracts from the start. Actors who never explicitly sold the rights to their likeness should be off limits.
The earliest movie that resurrected dead people were in Forrest gump with the president's that Forrest meets in that movie.
but the first instance for me that a dead actor is brought back to like is that one episode from tales from the crypt with Humphrey Bogart staring in an episode despite the actor being dead for several years at that point.
Are they just paying the estates of the actors when they bring them back? I kinda hate this as it's going to phase out new actors... will companies start BUYING the rights to entire humans, voices and all? Idk man again, I kinda hate it
What do you think of Stan Lee appearing in more cameos until the end of time? Maybe have a tv show where he's a recurring character.
Im glad marvel haven’t brought him back and have had tributes in other ways by including his birthdays in licence plates and stuff
@@heavyspoilers I think Marvel understands that their fans would find that in poor taste. It's weird that DC fans don't find this meta bullshit in poor taste.
They had cameos of dead actors but didn't get Grant and Wesly snipes?
Wait I thought George reeves and Adam West were done with archival footage, did they CG them to!? I thought they only used CGI for Christopher reeve because he’s easily the most famous and beloved of the cameos they showed in that scene
As you said, it’s about creating a false sense of nostalgia. Let the dead rest, don’t try to squeeze every penny out of their talent, to which they never consented to. It’s a matter of decency in the face of Hollywood greed. It’s almost as if Hollywood treats actors as property. What’s next? Putting copyright on actors?
Yes, that's exactly what's next. Copyright and buy everything, rent us our lives if we're good
no its them believing you're stupid enough to be satisfied with this. Its the same reason their form of inclusion is skin swapping vs giving those ethnic groups proper IPs. The quickest buck with the least resistance. No Way Home was the exact same except you can enjoy that film if you turn your brain off.
False sense of nostalgia? I think if it makes you feel nostalgic then its not false. Your upset they used someone who other wise you wouldnt see and gave christopher reeves more shine than hes had in 40 years. Let the dead rest? Okay then throw away the pictures of your dead loved ones and dont talk about them today. Lets be real if people were portraying you as SUPERMAN even after your gone thats a blessing.
@@Duhbiee you are fucking chronically online
Hate to break it to you but there already is a company that buys likeness to dead actors.
Honestly it felt a bit weird and out of the uncanny valley, I’m sure the families signed off on these cameos but I still get many people feeling icky about their inclusions. I think they should just stick to having alive people cameo because using dead people can seem unethical.
Acting is an art and art requires soul to be meaningful.
Doing this takes away that key aspect
One of my biggest complaints about this stuff is that it becomes the topic of conversation instead of the actual movie. I liked Flash. I had a lot of fun watching it. These scenes could have just been stock footage showing glimpses of the other universes, but instead they chose to create scenes. That choice as well as the Ezra Miller incidents are causing people to skip a movie, or to just go in with a predetermined conclusion. They see the negative stuff they heard about and they reaffirm the opinion they formed even before viewing the movie. In my opinion the same thing happed to Solo. Solo isn’t a bad film, it’s just not a film people wanted at the time.
I saw *"Solo"* just recently and it's not a bad inclusion in the Star Wars universe. Plus, you had the real negative ire aimed at Kathleen Kennedy, which was uncalled for.
Well, I commend you for watching and enjoying the movie (Flash) by following the character, not the person. I couldn't, I can't stand the dude.
However, as always, whatever is published about Ezra Miller should be taken with a grain of salt, he's probably not the psycho articles/videos make him out to be.
I don't think a dead person can care (to go back to the topic), so I see no harm... except for the relatives and fans. It is disrespectful only to them, yet disrespect is disrespect, especially out of greed.
I think going forward, actors should be able to sign off on wether or not they are willing to be in films posthumously.
Payments for these appearances going to family and/or charities.
It could easily continue AND respect the actors wishes.
But I do agree, without something like this in place, we’re trusting studios to be respectful of these people, instead of the actors or their families.
I believe this is the case now. I’m sure I read that James Earl Jones has said he won’t voice anymore dialogue for any future Star Wars projects but has signed over the rights to use everything that he was already recorded up to now to be used to recreate and simulate his voice.
@@mysticnutmeg I’m fairly sure I remember that as well.
I’m just saying it should happen with everyone. Part of the contract for every role.
Although, now that I’ve said that, I can see how muddy it could get quickly. With big studios making new actors feel pressured to sign away their likenesses in order to land roles. 🤷🏻♂️
Regardless, there has to be a smart way to handle these things.
"within perpetuity throughout the universe" is a phrase used in entertainment contracts.
@@G3T3MGON I know, it’s gross. I’ve signed something similar just to be an extra in Alita.
Actors have a Union. Certainly there’s something they can do to make sure the actors under their umbrella can get a better deal than “in perpetuity”.
I'm pretty sure that is a part of the SAG contract renegotiations happening right now cause studios own an actor's likeness as a specific character. Like, the studios don't own Harrison Ford's likeness, but Ford as Han Solo, they own that likeness
The idea that even after death a corporation will still use someone’s face and voice is so fucked up
Yeah agreed
Is it any different than using a photo or painting of the person for merchandise or in movies/shows?
@@keithsummers_exactly. It's their face and voice in that role, as that character. Not their face and voice going to the grocery store or spending time with their real life families, it's only in character. Which I imagine that Hollywood contracts most likely stipulate, and if they don't they will soon.
That we are in agreement on this means the film was successful in its intent.
Andy M. actually got through to us. He made us see the horror.
@@keithsummers_Yes. The marketing materials are for films they were in while alive. Hence they agreed to their likeness being used for those purposes. Simulating an entirely new performance without the actor’s involvement or consent is completely different.
I thought the Harold Ramis one was a very touching tribute, which I think he would've approved of. All the ingredients were right & it's charged with emotion. I don't object in principal to resurrecting vintage characters but using those who died prematurely in tragic circumstances just seems tactless. Particularly when it's to prop up such a piss-poor movie is with a lead actor who should have been dropped regardless of being a criminal, he's just shit.
If my family is getting paid for my likeness when I’m dead I’m cool with it.
The director telling people he wanted the special effects to look off is like when I tell passengers my car is supposed to make that sound.... it's not
I agree completely. They really need to stop because it's getting creepy and inappropriate. It's ok to recast and we are all adults here knowing that sometimes tragedy happens. Getting people to have fake nostalgic moments just to get us to see the movie is inappropriate and they're just trying to make money off of our feelings. I have a feeling that at some point, the consent issue might come back to haunt Hollywood for doing this. I'm glad I didn't go see this in the theater for this and many other reasons.
I think Tarkin, even though it looked wonky, was key to the plot for Rogue One. It provided context and helped flesh out the universe. They *could* have done without, but I think it was better for it. The Superman ones: no. That's just bad. But I've been done with superhero movies for a while now, so I didn't even know this was a thing.
I understand where you're coming from. However, if any character is that important, then recast the part. I was born in '78 and grew up with Star Wars. I would personally rather see Tarkin be recast with an actor who is close enough to Peter Cushing than to have "obvious CGI Ghost Peter Cushing" so many years after his passing.
@@debiw8599 I think that would be a fair approach. If they can recast Darth Vader and Obi Wan Kenobi, they can recast Tarkin. :)
They did say if Tarkin didn't look perfect his lines would have been given to other characters.
Very good points Paul, I hadn't even thought about it from this point of view. I remember them once talking about being able to put the likes of Michael Jackson and Tupac in concerts as if they were still alive. I somehow missed they started doing that in movies too. Damn, that's disturbing to thing they're forced to work even after death. Oh and speaking of Black Mirror, before Jane is Aweful, they also did a similar thing starring Miley Cyrus in Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too, which is also relevant to this video.
It does not look like many people disagree below that there are many recent incidents of gratuitous use of deceased individuals.
Someone else noted that it will only become more common, and people like us who find it icky will become more uncommon over time. The next generation will think nothing much of the likeness borrowing.
Recasting is always going to be my preferred option. Passing the torch to a new actor, a new generation to tell new stories ensures those tales get to live on in a way that cgi and clever voice acting/modulation can't. You get a new actor to love, get to watch them hone their craft to bring their best to the audience. As nice as it is to have that nostalgic connection to faces we know, it robs new or overlooked talent of a chance to make a name for themselves. Chadwick wanted T'Challa to be recast. I'm sure there are others that would have loved to see their mantles pass to new talent too.
Wouldn’t say Chadwick WANTED that. His brother spoke as if he can speak for the dead when the truth is, he can’t. Plus, Tchalla was recasted…
Tchalla was recasted in a way !
T’Challa was recasted in a very organic way. Ryan Coogler did an amazing job in that regard.
I remember for a short period in the music world during major concert festivals, several deceased artists were "brought back to life" via hologram and the creative use of previous audio clips spliced together to interact with the live artist on stage. It went away after about a year or so because many concertgoers were not impressed by it, plus, the technology skyrocketed the tour budget, but the gimmick didn't increase ticket sales.
This is a fad for the moment, but when studios realize how much it raises a budget of a movie with very little to no payoff at the box office, it will go away as it did in the music industry.
I don’t think so. The Luke Skywalker deepfakes showed that one person can do a much more impressive job at creating digital doubles than the vastly more expensive techniques used previously in big budget Hollywood features, e.g. Rogue One. On top of that saving, the stand-in actor that the deepfake is built on is also much cheaper to have on set than the A-list actor that is being represented. So you get a highly marketable actor’s likeness at a much lower price than their appearance would normally cost using vfx techniques that are also (comparatively) cheap. As the technology improves it will only be more convincing. Whether audiences will want to watch the ‘ghost’ of a young Harrison Ford in the 250th instalment of the Indiana Jones franchise is yet to be seen, but studios won’t stop doing it due to the costs of the technology.
The Carrie Fischer one was ok and i liked it....but when it comes to others that have died years before was not fair to those actors and sad the families agreed to this Adam West was a line crossed for me!
I didn't have a problem with the cameos. I thought it was more of a celebration of the DC universe on the big and small screen as opposed to nostalgia bait. And who knows? Maybe they'll inspire members of the audience to seek out the Christopher Reeve Superman movies or the George Reeves and Adam West TV shows. I don't see that as a bad thing.
As for using CGI replications of actors who haven't given consent. I don't have a problem with this in relation to a cameo (although I wonder why they just didn't use archival footage.) I'm not an actor but I would assume that one fear of an actor is being forgotten (seems to be a theme in a lot of movies I've seen) and these cameos suddenly put them back centre stage in the public's eye. Isn't that what every actor wants? To be remembered? Of course, as long as it's done tastefully.
I mean, they could've just use a older footage from the movies or Brandon Routh's Superman. There's no need for having a CGI version of those actors.
I feel like the use of Christopher Reeve is exceptionally egregious, especially given what he went through in the last years of his life. It has to be such a slap in the face to his son to see him standing again, after he helped care for Christopher after his accident. I cannot imagine the gut punch of seeing that.
I have to agree with the sentiment here. If an actor signed on for a film, but was unable to complete it, and there's enough footage that can be used to complete it, then that's fair. Otherwise, leave them alone.
Dear youtubers please stop releasing spoilers before the movies out. You arent going to stop when we ask why should Hollywood?
It’s crazy how it comes back in full circle. Ben Affleck portrayed George Reeves in Hollywood Land (2006).
They're not going to stop, unfortunately. It's a huge money grab for them.
I took it as respecting the legacy of their portrayals
I completely disagree with the idea of it being a negative. For starters if the family is okay with it nobody really has the right to argue it’s in bad taste.
Secondly, actors do the job with one large goal of it being recognition. Becoming immortalized so to speak. I doubt any of the people shown would have had issue with having their image used. And to reiterate there is zero chance that WARNER BROS was able to do it without the agreement of the estates. Who are we to tell Christopher Reeves children their father shouldn’t be shown in a DC movie bc the cgi isn’t great.
What’s infinitely worse imo is the studio using a CGI amalgamation of a Jay Garrick who wasn’t played by any actor.
I think it sucks, in all instances except when an actor dies when the movie is close to complete. The ending Furious 7 is the only movie that did it well. But when the character, like Tarkin, is unnecessary, just recast the actor or write around it. The deceased actors for Supes in The Flash. In it, it came off as jingling keys in front of a cat.
Yeah I think if they’ve signed on and were working on it it’s understandable, to just pull them out of nowhere even though theyre dead is a bit weird
I feel the exact opposite. My little cousin had no idea who Christopher reeves even was before seeing this. Its continuing his legacy. People cry about everything today
Is it his legacy? Really? Acting isn't just being there and taking directions. Reeve would have had input into his role - without that 2-way process it isn't him at all, it's a waxwork.
@@jacobturnerart what people remember you for is your legacy. How people remember you is your legacy and guess what yes acting 90% of the time is stand there and take directions
yeah the entire point of having a director is to literally give directions - not just to the actors but the lighting and sound people, the camera guys etc - many directors take it one step further and pick up the camera themselves!
people only see the actors on the screen so they assume what they're seeing is mostly something the actors are responsible for - it's not
you don't literally see them on the screen but it's mostly the director, not the actors, who "made" that film
the only other people with more control are producers - which is why you see so many actors now who have producer credits next to their name - so they actually CAN have some more say!
God damnit... Cant watch this until we watch The Flash... You know that movie flopped so why?!?!?! I have to wait until HBOMax? *COMEON MAN!!!* On a scale of 1-10 how much of a spoiler 🤔 Like if the spoiler is just that MK is in the movie, ya we know that. But if you're spoiler is like Brainiac is in the movie, then yea, lets skip this vid for now.
When i sit down to watch a movie, my brain makes an agreement that everything im going to experience is FAKE. So i just roll with whatever is placed in front of me. Bad CGI, green screens, de-aging…🙈.. doesn’t distract in the slightest. Often, i have to have a UA-cam point it out to me after the fact. Im basically Cypher from the matrix. Maybe i have a lack of respect for the dead 🤷🏽.
I want them to stop this, too, but they won't, Paul. Hollywood doesn't give a f&(# what we think, they just want money.
Charles Dance should have been Grand Moff Tarkin in SW Rogue One. But, Hollywood gonna Hollywood.
I'm still trying to understand why the cgi had a purposely unfinished look as mentioned by the director
Don't have a problem about it at all.
If all know estates or current family give consent (only, ONLY if the actor is shown in positive way) and used on a case by case basis, sure.
I actually thoroughly enjoyed the movie and didn't mind what they did I just wish the CGI was better but I enjoyed it 7/10... Would actually watch a sequel
Same. I feel like people are picking it apart because they don’t want to like it. “The CGI really took me out of the movie!” …. Yeah? Well, does the shoddy VFX in movies like the original Clash of the Titans pull you out, or can you just watch, enjoy, and understand they were able to convey the images and message they were attempting…. Even if it does look bad at times?
Omg give me a break. They didn’t even speak. It was just their images for a moment. This video is nothing but faux outrage for clicks/views
Why couldn’t have they used any other older dc media with the actors still alive? The cw flash show did this really good with flash from the 90s show and smallvile. Their likenesses was used for just a cheap cameo and tbh it didnt even work imo, the reveal of the colliding worlds as the solution to the equation was out of left field and half of the audience didn’t really cared.
I think at first they write the planned upcoming movies around the actors who pass during the progress of filming a series and since they couldn't fulfill their role they bring them back as a tribute.
Well in the end everything is finite .that guy jebus lived all the years ago and he will be forgotten. Everything ends. So it's kinda nice they even do a throw back I guess.
It is a delicate balance. If any possible surviving family gives permission and they respect the character and it's mainly a cameo for a nod then I am more at ease.. and at much better graphics lol.
Thanks for this video. Helps us out a lot.
If people just stop going to watch these trash movies than the coorporations will soon go bankrupt. Serves them right.
Yeesh. I didn't know about the Bruce Lee casket scene. That is pretty f'd up.
I can see your point of view of Paul. Personally I feel nothing for the Cgi “cameo actors “ so it doesn’t sting. But if marvel tried to do this in 50 years with Cgi Hugh Jackman or Tobey Magiure, yeah I imagine that would piss me off
I think with the family's permission, it's more reasonable to accept. They often get re-introduced as cartoons, so I don't have a huge issue with it all. If my late wife was brought back in a film, I would find it difficult, but I would eventually be fine with being able to see and hear her again as long as it wasn't disrespectful in any way. Ultimately, I would want final approval.
There is only one reason and it is money. My opinion, it's fucked up. Leave the dead to rest.
They are dead who cares just a chance for the family to make a little money and if they are fine with it shut up
I’m ok with cheeky Cage as superdude we never saw, but I’d rather let the dead rest
in rogue one and rise of skywalker, i was fine with it. ghostbusters afterlife i was fine with it plus, it hit close to home for me since the movie came out a couple months after losing my mom to cancer april of 2021. but, these being in the flash movie felt very unwanted. i was actually really surprised by it as well and was like, WTF ? hollywood really should stop doing these things cause it feels like a disrespect towards those who have passed on.
i agree and the thing about gb afterlife as paul said bill, dan,and ernie in the scene with egon was all unacted they were speaking to how they felt about harold, it was a genuine reaction
So I haven't seen the Flash but have seen and heard about these cameos. What I don't understand is why they don't use footage from the series instead of CGIing them from the dead. You still get your cameo and it's not weird/unethical. Everyone (except Nic Cage but he's still alive) had a movie or show, just show a scene or 2 and there it is. No need to parade them with your own PS2 creation
According to reports, Nic Cage actually filmed the scene in his version of the Superman costume but they still replaced him with the CGI version.
Hollywood should have ask family first or make recast
If you haven't seen the Flash don't worry no one else has eithet
👀
I think it's ok with the family's permission
I thought Marvel was going to do this on the throne room scene in Black Panther 2 and I creeped out until the reveal.
I agree with everything you said man
I think it all depends on the why
I liked the cameos, it shows that all DC shows and movies are part of the DCEUs multiverse. The Nicolas Cage cameo actually made me wanna see his version lol
Also seeing Clooney come back as Bruce Wayne is pretty cool, especially since it appears that Barry is now stuck in that Clooney universe
I mean imagine being dead and still having to work? It's my biggest fear.
Mine as well man
Hollywood is waist-deep in the "remember this thing?" business now. We've even entered 2008 nostalgia by bringing RDJ back to the MCU
The biggest problem I had with Tarkin is the urge to make it resemble Cushing. Whatever happened to just recasting? That actor that was playing what ended up being just the model was perfectly damn fine, amazing in fact. To me, the most annoying thing isn't resurrecting the dead as much as ignoring the living.
I think this was kind of the point of those hideous CGI cameos.
If it *was* a deliberate aesthetic choice, it was genius. Shoving nostalgia down our throats while Barry #1 screams "STOP! STOP! CAN'T YOU SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING!?"
Reboots and resurrections forever until the uncanny valley has trapped us all in a nightmare of lost futures and a "Children of Men" scenario where no new "babies" (ie: cultural forms, artworks) are being born.
This was a resolutely anti-nostalgia film. Even that one little move with the can of tomatoes requires Barry #1 to be punished. Wanna still change one little thing and save your Dad?
Ok, fine. Here's the worst Batman ever! Fk you.
Unlike the silly MCU where there are no consequences, this film is bleak, politically savvy, and far more mature in its love for teenage nihilism - a more seasoned and jaded slop than the MCU.
It's still slop. Just better slop than the MCU. We should be flattered that the director thought we pigs had the intelligence to differentiate between the two varieties of slop on offer.
meh
actors LIVE for this shit - Christopher Reeve was desperate to get out of his wheelchair SO HE COULD PLAY SUPERMAN AGAIN
if we were talking about "ordinary" people you may have a point but ACTORS are motivated first and foremost by the very idea of IMMORTALITY through cinema...
I can't believe, folks are complaining about the graphics....and sure they could've not included any cameos but THEY WENT BIG, but to complain about the graphics? To say the CGI was anything we see on consoles, really? I don't remember textures being as good as what we saw in the Flash....This all stems from Reeve's face looking janky...and babies that can't handle said jank...I'm just glad we get to see a decent DC movie finally...
I'm a MASSIVE Superman fan, and I saw the movie early on Monday before it was released. I've been talking it up to anyone who will listen. I've had absolutely no problem with them using Chris's likeness, same with the non-existent Superman Lives scene, or George Reeves, or Adam We...
He's super dead. You weren't going to get him to film a cameo because, he's fucking in the ground...
If his family is okay with it, which I assume they would be, who cares...
THANK YOU HEAVY SPOILERS! Ever since Rogue One, I have been terrified that audiences wouldn't push back against it and we would slowly but surely get to a point where corporations shamelessly "revive" the dead to make money off their image. Honeslty even in The Mandalorian I hated how they used Luke because I knew it would lead to them using it more and more blatantly even if (God hope this doesn't happen soon) Mark Hamil himself passes away. It should have ended years ago and I'm disappointed that it has gotten to this point.
Instead of George Reeve Superman, it should’ve been Max Fleisher’s Superman cartoon. Instead of Chris Reeves Superman, it should’ve been Brandon Routh as Superman. It was a big missed opportunity that they didn’t get to showcase the Superman for the new DCU or show some characters or scenes from the DCAU.
Your opinion is over-reaching….I do understand from you’re coming from, but to me is you LOOKING for something to complain about 🤷🏾♂️
You’re better than this….be better 😉
What the Flash did feels egregious because a) they literally brought them back just for cheap fanservice. They don't affect the plot in any way, they're just there to sell tickets. And b) George Reeves was upset about the fact that he couldn't get more roles outside of Superman, and it's believed that this played a factor in his eventual death. It's straight up disrespectful for WB to dig him up from the grave just to throw more cameos in our face.
What's even worse is that there's actors who are actually alive that could be in the movie. Why not bring in Brandon Routh or Tyler Hoechlin's Superman? What about Grant Gustin or John Wesley Shipp to play their versions of Barry Allen? I doubt Christian Bale would come back for a project like this, but certainly you could find some way to squeeze in Joseph Gordon Levitt as a homage to The Dark Knight movies to play his version of Batman or Robin or Nightwing, or whoever he was supposed to end up being in that universe. Not only would they have avoided disrespecting deceased actors, but they could also utilize those cameos in interesting ways that would require a still-living, present actor to be there, as opposed to having a voiceless Christopher Reeves Superman just standing there.
Well, like with all forms of technology, it really depends on how the technology and methods are used. Speaking on behalf of SAG-AFTRA actors, the main problem is ensuring that actors and featured journalists get residual income from the reuse and recycling of their likeness onto other projects, even if the studio does not legally need permission. However, referring to The Flash specifically, I actually thought that it was reasonable to reuse footage of older/ancient DC Comics films in The Flash during that scene in the temporal void with all the colorful bubbles and whatnot. The bubbles were really just artistic images of other DC universes that OUR world has seen or could have become real (in the case of Nic Cage.) Nostalgia is fine if it actually works with the mechanics of the story and the rules of that world... I know that I keep bringing "mechanics" up a lot in these comments, but that is such a vital part of what makes or breaks the storytelling of these universes, whether its DC, Marvel, whatever Universal tried to do with monsters, or even the Mission Impossible franchise. If the nostalgia, CGI, deepfake, or whatever it is along those lines works with the mechanics of the story, then it may work well with audiences... But if it looks something like low-resolution babies (yes, that includes you, Twilight,) then audiences are gonna trash the film just based on that alone.
When I saw this in the theater I liked it, BUT I thought they were strictly using archive footage like the clips you used in your video. In one of the anniversary episodes of Dr Who, they used archive footage of the previous Doctors to have them all work together and it was brilliant. But using CGI, and bad CGI, is expensive, unnecessary, and creepy. I don't know the actor from Rogue One, but I did liked what they did there. So I don't think we should say no more across the board, but first ask 'is it necessary' and 'can it be done respectfully.' Don't let a few bad apples spoil the bunch.
No mention of the Arnold CGI on Terminator Genysis or Salvation? Or Michael Douglas in Ant-Man? This CGI-Deepfake is a double edged sword. We can bring back actors we love and simply carry on their likeness or it can ruin their legacy’s and be overused
I think you make a very reasonable case. I also think that that very brief appearances of these old actors in their DC superhero roles could also just be seen as a tribute to these actors that we knew and loved in the past. (I haven't seen "The Flash", so I can't speak about the cameos in any detail, so I might be wrong.) I think it's no different than musician's including a small snatch of another song as a little nod to it (like Yes making a nod towards the Beatles by quoting "Day Tripper" briefly when they covered "Every Little Thing"... sorry for not being able to think of an example less than 50+ years old).
Having a CGI Peter Cushing reprise his role in "Rogue One" is a whole 'nother thing, as you said, and in that case I think we should only do that when the actor in question has given his or her permission for their likeness to be used. Of course, Peter Cushing might have made that agreement with respect to his likeness being used in cartoons or toys, and no one expected at the time that a CGI version of him would be possible some day... or perhaps they did, and Lucasfilm really does have contractual permission to do what they did. Surely the actor's estate would have complained and/or sued if that wasn't the case, and they didn't like it. I would believe that any actor in the last 30 years or more would have had the opportunity to make this decision, especially in the case of an IP like Star Wars, that was an early adopter of CGI characters.
Peter Cushing died in 1994, so it's conceivable he gave his permission for his likeness to use used in this way specifically. Ditto Christopher Reeve. I think we can be certain that that's not the case for George Reeves.
I agree with you, I think there should be way less CGI in movies in general! Of course a 'Science Fiction Movie' is going to need CGI but I think you can limit it (like Interstellar or Dune), instead of de-aging they should re-cast! Just my thoughts...
I'm so glad I don't watch a lot of films anymore. My time is precious and I don't want to waste it on trash. Especially Hollywood films I avoid like the plague, however I only watch indie and European films. UA-cam videos I can "watch" while doing something else like washing up. ;)
I don't agree with the theory of "false nostalgia"? It's either nostalgic or it isn't? That's like saying "I suffer from false sadness". But while I think that your points about The Flash are valid, I did actually cheer to myself like a total utter bell-end when I saw Christopher Reeve even though the effects looked absolute utter shite. And to add insult to injury I watched it illegally on an iPad.
Take that Hollywood.
I'm alright with this, when done well. Knew this was going to be a thing when commercials clipped actors and dancers (Fred Astaire dancing with a vacuum / John Wayne beer / Groucho Marks and others dancing with Paula Abdul for Coke) which were less about the actors legacy and more about pushing product on consumers. At least in movies and shows, a de-aged living or dead actor, or such opens up artists avenues, if done not solely for the cash grab. Doing it well, so you hardly see the CG is so key, that uncanny valley just is traumatic, but a great fake is transcending to see actors in youth or actors resurrected. Now go mop up some soda with a stick vacuum and have a beer, and take it easy pilgrim.
Morning, I think Plan 9 From Outer Space was the first movie to have an actor (Bela Lugosi?) die mid way through shooting and I think they had a gardener or someone stand in for the rest of the film, he was a foot taller and had to stoop and cover his face all the time, Jonny Depp starred in the movie Ed Wood about this. Plan 9 is supposed to be the worst movie ever made but I guess now Flash tops the list? I think you've made a good argument, overall there are legal and moral issues, if the actor dies mid-way through shooting and there's evidence that he would like the movie to have been finished and it's done tastefully (Oliver Reed was an absolute legend, Brandon Lee also, but in his case the death was on set, so not so sure they should have gone ahead on that one...), but yeah if it's ghoulish and there's evidence the actor resented the role (Superman, Tarkin) then it's just bizarre fan service that deserves a backlash.
Harold Ramis only "worked" because he was a ghost, which CGI has time and time again done tremendously well.
You know what didn't work? His dialogue. Because there was none! And he has a _weirdly long_ amount of screen time for such a short scene. It's beyond distracting!
Unless someone SPECIFICALLY consents to having their likeness used even after they dead, then they HAVENT consented to their likeness being used even after they’re dead 🤷🏼♂️
An estate does not have the right to negotiate future use of a dead person’s likeness anymore than the estate has a right to reconfigure royalty arrangements made before a person dies, that’s basically creating a pretext to try and legitimize the stealing of a dead person’s identity for profit when everyone knows they’re dead, and since you can’t compensate a dead person, any proceeds amount to theft, theft being the taking of something that you know is not yours
Let’s argue
I remember when cgi was new, and one of the things people were hyped for was bringing back dead stars. Like, wasn't there some commercial in the 90's with Bogart or something? I'm a heartless bastard though. For the Flash, I would have been playing across the DC-verse with every actor in history.
Well, I am 100% convinced we will get new Episodes of Star Trek TOS or something like it again at one point. Or Sean Connery Bond movies. And I am looking forward to the discussions about that.
Yes, besides being creepy there is real questions about just the ethics of using someone who is dead in your movie. They did not consent. Just because the Estate gave you consent might be legal, but morally? It is very questionable. The estate of someone who died maybe even decades ago do not care about the actors artistic integrity anymore, they just want some cash from a long dead relative. Especially like Peter Cushing in that new Star Wars movie. Is Gran Moff Tarkin really such a unique character they could not recast the part? He was a very minor character in the original star wars. It was very wrong and creepy
It certainly rides a line that I would hate for them to cross. It's like the hologram performances of dead musicians. But there are two major differences and one issue specific to this situation.
First, they haven't made an entire film based upon using the likeness of a dead actor. Definitely crossing a line.
Two, the actors likeness is an aspect of characters. So, for example, Peter Cushing's likeness was right on the line, or perhaps crossed it. I could argue for either side.
But in this situation with the Flash, it is all about the characters. You took issue with it not being necessary for the film.... but it really was. The original story of Flash Point was all about how there are different universes with different characters. And those universes are a corner stone of the comics. We are supposed to respect every version of every character and their stories. Those 'cameos' held purpose. It's not the only time DC has done this. They did in the Arrow Verse as well. As separated as all of these stories are, they are all under one reality umbrella.
So... I really don't take issue with the clips used in the Flash Point movie. They weren't forcing actors into a movie that they couldn't consent to. They were including the characters that belong to DC (to put it harshly), but more importantly belong to us.
They have been giving us these characters nearly a hundred years now. It's not as simple as 'nostalgia bate' in this specific situation. It's sewing together the fabric of 100 years of story telling. (But there certainly is nostalgia too.)
People need to chill the F out.... Is not like they did something goofy or killed that version of the character. It's celebrating their legacy, of the audience who remembered George reeves? Now people will be exposed to that version. Seeing Christopher again got me crying because of how much I love his superman.
As cool as they think it is. It gives the audience of
uneasiness .
I remember the first time I ever saw this type of effect used it was for a bud wiser commercial featuring the long dead John Wayne.
I'm not sure if it was early cgi or just archive footage remastered . What I d know is how it was played for laughs and it was not funny
It was creepy and disrespectful. I felt the same way with grand moff tarkin. He looked like a doll. Which creeped me out even worse.
If..
IF Hollywood continues do this at the very least they should provide for public display proof they have obtained permission from the stars estate ro do so. Even put it in the end credits prominently. But even that will never help with the feeling of just pure disquieting Ookiness of it.
Plus I think its dis comfortimg on another level on which we all secretly dread the day when actors are permanently replaced by cgi. And just paid a flat fee for use of thier image. Then the computer takes over from there.
Creatives should all dread that day from writers to actors...it's coming...it's already edged out so many jobs inclymuding some youtube narrators!
My issue with the scene in Flash is that unlike Rouge One where u can argue that it makes sense, this was completely and utterly pointless and was clear idiotic fan service. Also if you were gonna do fan service it would’ve made more sense like they did in the Spiderverse, if we saw different versions of Flash (Grant Gustin, John Wesley Ship) since they’re all connected through the speed force. That would’ve made much more sense than just more pointless character versions of Batman and Superman to get a quick cheer from the audience.
I felt like the Egon in Ghostbusters: Afterlife was very respectful but thats because it wasn’t bringing back Harold Ramis, it was bringing back the character of Egon.
I don't see the problem. Just like I don't see a problem with you showing clips from others as part of what you're doing. Permissions police stunt future work. Like imagine if you couldn't make biography of dead person because they can't give permission.
Wasn't Brandon Routh's Superman movie technically a sequel to the Christopher Reeve Superman movies? It's weird that they put Reeve in this movie when he was recasted. Plus I noticed that when Routh played Superman, he kind of looked like Reeve too.
With Tarkin they got permission from his estate and they had them supervise the VFX team and if they weren't able to perfect it his lines would have been given to other characters. This is when it dose work. With Leia in Episode 9 Billie Lourd gave them permission and said it was a beautiful idea. Again it worked. The Flash cameos wear just pointless.
They could have used Brandon Routh as he isn't doing much these days as the Arrowverse is over. And they already had Ben Affleck who played George Reeves/Superman in 'Hollywoodland.'
I see your point but I think the 🐈’s out of the 🛍️ and we are going to see more and more of this happening as the years start to roll on. Not saying it’s right or wrong, it is what it is. The Shakespeare photo is kind of funny but also brings up a point, should companies stop using the deceased’s images for profit when it comes to merchandise and in movies? Is CGI just a modern day photo/painting in the evolution of the art of visuals?
Great, great nephew.... more power to ya. Get paid as I have relinquished my likeness once I sign to a studio, active project or not. Further, we buy merchandise with the likeness of these people all the time, what's the difference there? We buy for nostalgia, studios cash grab, actors had no consent in the product. I get it the point, I respect the point, but at the same time.... meh.
For the Flash's unecessary legend cameos, they should've just gone with Tyler and Brandon Routh's Supermen instead, so simple and cheaper for the studio too, really don't get them.....