Opinion The Flash Bringing Dead Actors Back With CGI Is Disgusting - The Flash is another in a growing list of blockbusters to bring the dead back to life with CGI, but it needs to be the last.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

BY JAMES TROUGHTON
PUBLISHED 15 HOURS AGO


1.jpg

The Flash is DC’s answer to the MCU’s multiverse saga, morphing what was once an interesting narrative device into an arm’s race on who can get the most fan-favourite cameos. Spider-Man: No Way Home got a headstart with Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, so The Flash brought in Michael Keaton. As leaks reveal, it also features Christopher Reeve, Adam West, and George Reaves. Unlike the cameos that came before, these three are dead actors, but they were brought back to fulfil a similar goal - nostalgia bait. But what joy is there in lifeless puppets with the faces of dead actors?

It’s a disservice to their entire careers, tarnishing their legacies. Christopher Reeves’ last ‘appearance’ in film is now an action figure conjured to lull audiences with mindless nostalgia. We should’ve heard the alarm bells when Peter Cushing was brought back for Rogue One, we should have raised the pitchforks after deepfake Carrie Fisher, and we should have demanded it all end when Ghostbusters: Afterlife resurrected Harold Ramis. Instead, we cheered it on.

It sets a dangerous precedent for cinema. It means actors can be cast in roles without their consent post-mortem. It’s one thing for a studio to have the rights to your character and the story you’re in, it’s another to have the rights to you. The Flash didn’t bring back Superman, it brought back Christopher Reeve and tried to pass it off as him playing the character in what looks like a poorly rendered PS3 cutscene. He didn’t. There’s no performance here.

2.jpg

Estates and families may give permission, but that doesn’t make it ethical. Even if they claim that the actor would’ve been fine with it, the actor can’t read the script or understand the wider context of the film because they’re dead. Reeve might’ve hated the direction of his Superman in The Flash, Adam West might not have been interested in a multiversal story with two other Batmen, we don’t know. The second they die, that door closes, and with it, their take on these characters should be left alone, the torch passing to the next.

Directors like the Russo brothers want to take things a step further. They recently discussed a world in which we could bring dead celebrities like Marilyn Monroe back to life with AI that would write romcoms starring us, the viewer, literally letting us live out our fantasies. This is unsettling for all the same reasons as Reeve, but it also positions celebrities—disproportionately women—as objects who exist, even beyond death, just to serve our needs. We’re already seeing that with deepfake porn of Twitch streamers and famous movie stars, because the endgame of fan service and nostalgia bait is turning celebrities into literal commodities without consent. Normalising the use of CGI to bring your favourite superheroes back to life is barely a domino away from a culture where tech is used to rip people’s own likeness away from them to satisfy our own selfish desires.

3.jpg

Even if you’re on board with bringing back old characters ad nauseam, there are already better solutions than CGI necromancy. Superman Returns continued the Christopher Reeve movies with Brandon Routh as the titular hero. He then reprised the role in the CW Crisis on Infinite Earths event, and Routh is still alive and well. Roles are recast and other actors make them their own all the time. Having an actual actor give a performance means they can interact with the world organically and explore their character in more nuanced ways, whereas Reeve awkwardly looks off into the distance with a blank expression separate from everybody else. What does it add to the story? What does it tell us about his character? Nothing, it’s only there to make old fans feel young again.

In Rogue One, an early example of this abuse of art, Cushing looked uncanny and cartoonish, standing out in every single scene he was in—but, again, there was already a precedent. Cushing’s character, Grand Moff Tarkin, had been recast in Revenge of the Sith and The Clone Wars, so to drag him out of the grave to put on the costume not only felt insensitive, but completely unnecessary. If the idea was to seamlessly flow with A New Hope, don’t use their characters. Tarkin could’ve been any Imperial general, or the movie could’ve given Darth Vader and Orson Krennic more prominent roles. Even the improved Luke Skywalker in The Book of Boba Fett felt off because of a monotone AI voice that failed to capture any of the emotion of Mark Hamill’s performance. You need actors to act, and the fact I need to say that is bizarre. Recast, put their roles to rest, anything but what we’re doing. Ten years ago if you needed a young Luke Skywalker you’d give someone like Sebastian Stan a phone call and a new legacy would be born.

4.jpg

It’s as much about nostalgia bait as it is about the vanity of creatives and higher-ups who want to live out an impossible fantasy. The Flash director Andy Muschiette said that, in regards to cameos, “everything was allowed”. He said, “I made a list of superheroes that I love, that I would love to see… then, for pacing, we had to shortlist that a little bit.”

The idea of Adam West and Christopher Reeve on screen together is exciting and I get Muschiette’s joy at being able to make that a reality, but the actors are dead and with them that possibility. We shouldn’t puppeteer their corpses to live out our childhood dreams, we should cast new people and tell new stories. That’s the line in the sand we need to draw, that the dead should be left dead, rather than gleefully saying “everything was allowed” like a kid who has been handed a box of toys to smush together. These are real people, not action figures.

Instead of Christopher Reeve, we could’ve seen Routh or Tyler Hoechlin, and instead of Adam West, we could’ve had Christian Bale. There are always other options—living people. But even the very-much-alive Helen Slater was CGI, once again making it clear that the endgame is to strip down the role of actors and artists, paying them less and charging fans more for spoonfed nostalgia.

Like most recent tech controversies, higher-ups want to hasten the process of making ‘art’, whether that’s getting rid of writers and replacing them with AI, using AI to replicate an actor’s voice as we saw with Luke Skywalker, or using CGI to bring people to life. But art without people is meaningless—there’s no substance or critique, no personal meaning or history bleeding into the plot to tell stories that we can relate to. It’s just a stream of by-the-numbers content that tries to cater to everyone, but ironically ends up so dull and lifeless it won’t resonate with anyone. Hopefully, The Flash will prove to be the final nail in the coffin for CGI actors, showing general audiences what a truly horrific and bad idea it is. But since people are more concerned about being ‘spoiled’ in regards to a slideshow of dead faces, I’m not optimistic.
 
That commercial reminds me of this older one who was more better.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JFfKUF2kFPQ
"Never gets old."

Fuck, this made me miss Chris Farley a lot more now. Very sweet detail of David Spade being in the commercial too.

This is the best example of doing a commercial on a celebrity who passed away. Never doing a shitty CGI render, never putting words in his mouth, only putting the best of him to be remembered dearly. DirecTV got it right.
 
I'm all for it, Hollywood actors have no wualms whoring themselves out both physically and sending political messages, making the whole business drop actors and use CGI on stuntmen is karmic.
 
I’d argue Ghostbusters actually sort of earned its moment as it literally revolved the movie around the guy’s in-universe death, and did it in a really nice way. It was nostalgia-pandering, yet it was well-done nostalgia pandering.

Every other example is effectively “LOOK IT’S THAT OLD ACTOR PLEASE CLAP” and serves no actual story reason. Especially for Adam West’s Batman, like, the costume is more iconic than the actual face, just find a stand-in that can also do a good Adam West voice.
Ghostbusters was a legitimate final sendoff to an actor and character. It was one of the few circumstances when you probably could ethically use the departed actor. But even then it was right on that razers edge.

What was done with The Flash was positively ghoulish. And unecesary. It's one thing if you are using a piece of their prior performances. Have the hero looking through a portal seeing Christopher Reeve save Lois or Adam West punch Caesar Romero. That at least is their art being remembered and used. But this? This is digital necrophilia.
 
1. Who cares? Movies are shit. Actors are shit. Let it all burn.

2. Why would you want some unconstitutional over-reach law passed limiting speech and art over dead people being in movies? Dead people's whose families approved this garbage.
Although I initially disagreed I think you may have a point for a few reasons:

If actors are replaced by cgi actors people won't follow their politics or social media accounts as they are already dead. Some roles could also never be really replaced for certain actors : Donald Pleasance as Dr. Lumis in Halloween for instance.[Though Halloween Kills having a replacement VA for the dr. in the opening scene was awkward] I like some notion as long as it's not a soulless cash grab even though it will be majorly used as such.

If such a thing also stopped new age celebrities from getting influence and wealth I'm all for it. Corporations are going to make their money from coomers either way, at least this could in the near future fuck over the middlemen (actors/influencers of modern politics).
The Flash is DC, though. Can't blame didney for this one.
DC although not affiliated with Disney has had a lot of writers and producers intermingle between the two companies in the last decade or so, look at the writers and comic artists who keep getting traded over. They're often in a slightly incestuous affair while pretending to still be competitors. In a sense Disney writers have invaded DC so I can see a partial of blame still holding traction.
 
Its creepy and weird to bring back dead actors for nostalgia bait of all things but I'm sure its right to just shit on the studio for doing it, surely whoever controls the estate of the dead actor had to be contacted about it otherwise we would be hearing about lawsuits over it. I think the people signing off on this to effectively get free money are absolutely worse than the soulless studio execs who benefit from the nostalgiabuxs.
These kinds of people do absolutely goofy commercials on TV in Japan because they think Americans are too stupid to learn about it. The main standard they care about is $$$$ and will this affect my career so I can make more $$$$. I don't know why anyone thinks they wouldn't be fine with their spoiled kids and trophy spouses getting money from this kind of cheese.

Ghostbusters was a legitimate final sendoff to an actor and character. It was one of the few circumstances when you probably could ethically use the departed actor. But even then it was right on that razers edge.

What was done with The Flash was positively ghoulish. And unecesary. It's one thing if you are using a piece of their prior performances. Have the hero looking through a portal seeing Christopher Reeve save Lois or Adam West punch Caesar Romero. That at least is their art being remembered and used. But this? This is digital necrophilia.
Did Reeve's estate approve of it or not? How is it "absolutely ghoulish" and "necrophilia" for your literal legal representatives you assigned to enact your will approving something? In some cases I can see them acting against the will of people like authors of famous novels regarding things like censorship, but these are actors. In ancient Rome, actors were tantamout to prostitutes for a reason. lol

Also the fact people still take capeshit seriously is hilarious, let alone capeshit starrting Ezra Miller. It's like the McDonald's of cinema, except McDonald's employees actually sometimes care if they fuck up your order. If you are tired of absoulete dumb as fuck tentpole films that treat their audience as idiots, stop seeing capeshit so the generes finally change and something else gets made. Even then, the movies will probalby still be dumb as dirt and made by some entertainment industry jew's blood relation who doesn't care about what they are making becuase they were born into the job. People enable this stuff by giving them money.
 
>Marilyn Monroe back to life with AI that would write romcoms starring us, the viewer, literally letting us live out our fantasies

'romcoms'. Sure

Obviously the estate owns the rights to their image, but there has to be some kind of retroactive qualifier put in place; that if you couldn't have anticipated this in your lifetime you can't have someone consent to it on your behalf after death. I can't imagine the new level of paranoia that must be developing around who to trust with your estate after you die; presumably you can put a clause in your will that you never want this to happen to you.

& hollywood people would know that family are no guarantee of best interest. Imagine Britney if she gets put back under conservatorship, performing posthumously for as long as it makes her dad, mum and sister money - and their offspring, presumably. Or Amy Winehouse. Her dad is the type to do this if he's not stopped. Maybe some 'new' unreleased tracks or performance footage of hers will be discovered.

edit: everyone keeps complaining about hollywood actors but why would this be limited to just them? Let's say JKR and her husband die in a car crash and her estate passes to her daughter, who some people think she has a strained relationship with. What if this gets used to make a bunch of videos of JKR saying trans women are women? this applies to literally any public figure.

I still can't believe that I keep hearing about CGIng actors into this movie and it's still not 'to replace Ezra Miller with someone else'. It's like they're flaunting that he's still in the movie.

Does Miller have some massive dedicated fanbase that'll shovel money into seeing it that I don't know about? I know he was considered a teen heartthrob by the serial killer fangirls on tumblr, but they can't still be jonesing for him when he's not an actual killer and there can't be that many of them in the first place.
 
Last edited:
How is it "absolutely ghoulish" and "necrophilia" for your literal legal representatives you assigned to enact your will approving something?
Because traditionally your heirs have been given control over the art that you have made. They can decide when and where to use your performances or image. But the key point was always you still at some point controlled and approved those performances and images.

This is something new. This is not those actors art or performances. This is like a painters kids making new paintings that kind of mimick the deceased's style and attaching his name to them. "Yep it's a genuine Rembrandt". Even with family approval that's still considered a bad thing, if not outright fraud if they charge for it.

I can almost forgive it for those certain actors that agreed to specifically this type of use of themselves. Such as James Earl Jones licensing Disney to use recreations of his voice for the specific character of Darth Vader. He entered into that arrangement willingly and with full consent. George Reeves did not. Christopher Reeve did not. Adam West almost certainly didn't. (Granted given his unique voice he would have jumped at it and charged a boatload.)

But by the same token, why would the actors agree? and why assume they would? especially when many felt mistreated by the studios in life. The most definitive voice of Batman was Kevin Conroy. He voiced Batman in every DC animated show from the 80's up through the 00's. You know his voice when you hear it. But Warner Brothers threatened him with a lawsuit for having his own voice on his answering machine. They later cut him loose on a whim and replaced him with some unmemorable flavor of the month. He made most of his money going to cons. He would have had more than enough reason to tell Warner Brothers to Fuck Off. But he's dead so they may as well part out the corpse for profit.
 
Because traditionally your heirs have been given control over the art that you have made. They can decide when and where to use your performances or image. But the key point was always you still at some point controlled and approved those performances and images.
Nah, the traditional use of that power was done by Elvis's estate that slapped his moniker on everything under the sun to the point of absurdity even at one point allowing for "fat Elvis" to possibly be on a stamp that would have been sold in every post office in America. That went on for how long? 50 years? How many times has virtual Elvis appeared since then on concerts and TV? How many years has there been virtual Elvis apperances? It's certainly been more than 10 years. I don't know why you think this is requires orthodox iconoclasm to just transfer what has already been practiced in commercials, concerts and movies to even more movies. Hollyweird has always been about cashing in.

These people certainly had wills that outlined what they wanted. If you don't want it, put it in your will how your image can be used. You won't ever hear Beastie Boys music in a commercial, because MCA was a libtard nut about that and put it in his will that it can't be used in commercials. The band would have probably made 10 times what they have now if that had not been the case, but instead Mike D and Adrock are at the low end of rich spoiled people lazing around in their mansions doing nothing instead of being mega-rich with money exploding out their ass like most bands that famous would be due to music licensing because of Yauch's ideology.

I doubt most Hollywood people are that against their heirs cashing in. You are placing these people on a pedestal they don't deserve. This is even the norm in Hollywoold. They don't like "artists" who get a big head and won't just do whatever the studio tells them to. Those people get "bad reputations" and get phased out like Brando and Welles were. Hell, this even happened to people like Dave Chappelle. Hollywod sucks, dude. If someone doesn't have that rep in Hollweird and was a big name, chances are they didn't give a shit about selling out.

Further more, I absolutely guarantee you people like Reitman had this discussion before he died, because this was after this practice was already completely normalized. You're like 10 to 12 years late decrying this. They were trying to make another Ghostubsters move for like 10 million years, it was only held up by Bill Murray not wanting to do it. He certainly knew there was another movie being made before he died.

Adam West almost certainly didn't. (Granted given his unique voice he would have jumped at it and charged a boatload.)

Adam West finished his career by voicing cartoons, many of which made fun of Adam West. I seriously doubt he would fucking care or not be all for it. He wasn't Orson Welles. He loved playing up the kitsch portion of his public persona. I doubt Christopher Reeve would have cared either despite people feeling sorry for him over his disease. These were not religious prophets. They were doing jobs for money.

But by the same token, why would the actors agree? and why assume they would? especially when many felt mistreated by the studios in life. The most definitive voice of Batman was Kevin Conroy. He voiced Batman in every DC animated show from the 80's up through the 00's. You know his voice when you hear it. But Warner Brothers threatened him with a lawsuit for having his own voice on his answering machine. They later cut him loose on a whim and replaced him with some unmemorable flavor of the month. He made most of his money going to cons. He would have had more than enough reason to tell Warner Brothers to Fuck Off. But he's dead so they may as well part out the corpse for profit.

Kevin Conroy is such a nerdcore niche non-mainstream choice. Like Yeah I love BTAS and Conroy, he was a great talent and it was one of the best cartoons of all time, but he was not famous outside of the nerdosphere and did not make it in Hollywood as a big name. You may as well be talking about Christ Latta who voiced Star Scream and Cobra Commander or something. Yeah, Hollywierd treats lower tier people like absolute shit, it always has, but people keep feeding that monster where you are only really allowed make it if you were born into it like Ezra. If you just throw money at DC and Marvel for these movies, you are not fixing anything in that regard. I'm sorry.

You sound like you are taking this personal some how. Like that kind of sentiment should be saved for you friends and family. Entertainers don't deserve it. I've ran into people from bands and things and they were absolute cunts with god complexes. If someone like that is nice and down to earth outside the relationship of you handing them over a ton of money for their autograph, that is the exception not the norm.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe people are even arguing over this. Who gives a shit if some dead actor popped up for five seconds in a terrible movie? You don't think they'd be happy that people decades later still care about them enough to enjoy trivial things like this? I would certainly be happy knowing my descendants can earn a decent check every now and then just using my likeness.
 
I think it's pointless to fight it because it's inevitable. And when it is fully realized, we'll have endless remakes and sequels with dead actors written by AI bots and we'll have zero true human culture left. No chance for true spontaneity in acting or writing. No great new actors because the perfect ones already exist.

As time went by in the Roman Empire, they stopped producing new significant literary works. Most writing in Late Antiquity were long-winded "Look how clever I am" letters filled with endless references to old dead writers and mythology, or literary analysis of old Republic and Early Empire works. Even analysis of prior analysis in an endless recursive rabbit hole of bloviating. That's what the end stage of a dead civilization looks like.

Even the concept of The Flash is just repetition of this "multiverse" trend where you shove all the iterations and remakes of a franchise into one movie and pat yourself on the back for being clever.
 
If this can be done to 'rich and famous actors', it can be done to any other public figure.
That's the risk of being public. You are on the wrong website if you think that willingly exposing yourself to the general public doesn't end your right to privacy instantly.
 
His estate obviously approved it. Who gives a shit really.

It gets back to things like hologram Dio here and everyone saying his wife just wanted to cash in on his death. Yes the estate approves. But is it what the person being deepfaked really wanted? That's what is going to need to be ironed out in the future as this becomes more prevalent. You may need to get the lawyers involved decades before you die unless you want your CGI likeness shilling erection pills at 3am.

Black Mirror just did an episode about this. Read the fine print or you end up being exploited for the entertainment of morons.
 
It gets back to things like hologram Dio here and everyone saying his wife just wanted to cash in on his death. Yes the estate approves. But is it what the person being deepfaked really wanted? That's what is going to need to be ironed out in the future as this becomes more prevalent. You may need to get the lawyers involved decades before you die unless you want your CGI likeness shilling erection pills at 3am.

Black Mirror just did an episode about this. Read the fine print or you end up being exploited for the entertainment of morons.
Nevermind that you're not going to get the same result by just CGIing the actor. If someone were to deepfake Marlon Brando, for example, he has a distinct type of acting methodology that no one can just "replicate" nowadays; it wouldn't have the same impact. That Vietnam war film with CGI James Dean would also have the same result.

It also illuminates the lack of star power in Hollywood today if we have to keep using past celebrities for profit.
 
Nevermind that you're not going to get the same result by just CGIing the actor. If someone were to deepfake Marlon Brando, for example, he has a distinct type of acting methodology that no one can just "replicate" nowadays; it wouldn't have the same impact. That Vietnam war film with CGI James Dean would also have the same result.

It also illuminates the lack of star power in Hollywood today if we have to keep using past celebrities for profit.
Star power costs money, and why risk that when they can keep rehashing the past ad nauseam?
 
Back
Top Bottom