I think it’s safe to say that the current film era has focused on the past more than anything. From remakes of older films to reboots or long-gestating sequels of remembered franchises, or actors returning to play roles from decades ago. More films than ever have focused a lot of their energy on digging up things people remember and plastering them onto theater screens. This isn’t always a bad thing and occasionally great work can be done by returning to older works in a modern lens. However, there is still an undeniable cynicism that pervades a lot of these projects if only because it feels like they take precedence over important new works for this generation of filmgoers.

If there is one element that I take issue with the most however it is bringing deceased actors back with CGI and AI. I recently saw Alien: Romulus and quite enjoyed it. While it could be derivative of other films in its series, I still felt there were enough new ideas and a sense of craft behind it that I appreciated. However, what weighed down the film for me was the inclusion of a de-aged and reanimated CGI Ian Holm as an android that was just Ash from the first Alien. Holm sadly passed away relatively recently so bringing him back like this just felt uncomfortable. Even with his family and estate giving the filmmakers their blessing, the idea of placing this actor here for the sake of nostalgia feels a bit sinister and pointless at the same time.

First, let’s go over the obvious, CGI humans are uncanny. The human eye can perceive the smallest intricacies of normal faces, so trying to recreate them with computer effects is arguably the hardest line to cross. The first shots of the CGI Holm threw me off when I first saw it if only because it looked so out of place not just compared to the other regular humans, but to the rest of the visual effects in the film both CGI and practical. It isn’t an issue of the CGI looking poor, but more that CGI works best when making fantastical-looking things seem real. There’s a reason that Avatar has made so much money on the spectacle of mostly using CGI to bring to life aliens and their planet to an insanely real degree. When you apply that to a human, however, the brain will pick at what looks off since we all know what people look like. Certain smaller attributes can’t be accurately replicated by graphics and any sort of flaw becomes more noticeable. Even compared to puppets or mannequins, those effects seem less accurate but feel more real because of their physicality and the fact that they are right there in the scene. When watching the film, I kept asking myself why they chose to do this both in terms of the idea and overall execution. Why not have another actor or even an animatronic since it is an android after all? Using CGI for recreating human elements can work in smaller doses, but doing it in long and complicated scenes means audiences focus their eyes on it for longer and the illusion unravels.

However, a larger issue I have with this type of practice is the precedent it sets for the industry and the intent presented by those who use it. Hollywood wants to focus on nostalgia and recognizable properties because they believe it is the only way to safely make money now. No property has been left unturned and the usage of de-aging or CGI resurrections has been an element consistently used in nostalgic films to bring actors back mostly to get the audience’s attention. I feel that at some point, studios will be willing to cross a line to bring back as many actors as possible with CGI out of a desire to ring a few bells of nostalgia in the heads of audiences. However, this feels less like a genuine experiment and more like something Hollywood wants to utilize to keep going back to older properties for presumed easy money. If they believe the tech could work and audiences would be ok with it, what’s stopping them from making an entire film with actors brought back from the dead? The fact that many actors in the industry are concerned with their prospects due to the rise of AI and deepfake CGI and with some actors already selling their likenesses to studios makes me worry about how this practice will be utilized further down the road. It’s not just that the effect is uncanny, but that the usage and potential prospects of it feel cynical. It’s mostly only used for nostalgia purposes such as the aforementioned Romulus or Rouge One and it feels like Hollywood would only use it to bring actors back long after they are dead. At least with de-aging CGI, there is a reliance on a physical actor and the individual is there to give more direct consent even if it runs into the same problems of uncanniness. Bringing back dead actors with CGI wholesale just feels wrong and it is only used for nostalgia’s sake. There is also the fact that for some actors, Hollywood only values the iconic performances they gave and may only try to milk that once they pass. Some are viewed as being more valuable to the industry dead than alive and studios would want to use this technology to keep using someone’s likeness in their pockets far after they are gone even when said actor likely wouldn’t consent to the practice or didn’t reap the benefits of said initial performance beforehand while the studio continues to.

Not to mention that we already have a practice that could bring back characters without relying on the uncanny valley: recasting. I feel that audiences and studios put too much weight into individual iconic roles that they forget that many get re-cast all the time. Characters like James Bond and Batman are practically defined by the multitude of different interpretations from many performers over the years. Even in examples meant to return to an older version of a character, such as Doctor Sleep returning to the original The Shining, casting similar actors to the originals and letting their performances speak for themselves give stronger results than stitching together CGI faces and digitally adjusting voices to resemble another. Sure, it isn’t entirely accurate, but like with practical effect, casting a real human is far more effective because of the real presence on screen. Not to mention that because they aren’t fully trying to replicate the original performance or cadence of the actor beyond their capabilities, it feels less uncanny compared to using AI that tries to unnaturally fill in the gaps. There is also how some actors have been portrayed by other performers in films about them and the times they lived. Performances are putting one’s self into another person’s shoes so the practice can easily apply to someone playing a role as someone else did before. The human element of performance and the general strengths of acting are what is missing when actors are brought back with CGI.

Alien Romulus pushed some buttons with me regarding the usage of CGI to bring back actors. Not only did it not work for me in the film, but it contrasted with almost every other aspect of the movie. The set design, cinematography, other effects, and performances all felt more natural and built from a sense of passion that reminded me why I love movies. To see artists and other collaborators come together to bring us into new worlds. CGI actors just feel like the antithesis to everything I feel film does well. Instead of taking an artistic risk, it’s been used to bring back actors to play roles from years ago. Instead of allowing new actors to try their spin on a recognized role or archetype, this technology might be used to replace opportunities in favor of what studios see as safe. Unlike some trends in the industry, I have seen more pushback from general audiences and pundits so I have a bit of confidence that this will only remain a minimal trend. I still expect to see a few older performances brought back with CGI, but I also believe that as long as actors want to perform, there will be those willing to try other methods and not rely so much on something that offers so little in the grand scheme of things. Actors can’t stay around forever and while it may seem sappy, we should cherish the performances they gave. Heck, the fact that they were put on film means that they can live through their work far after they have gone. Bringing them back through CGI puppetry feels forced and at some level, it’s best to let the dead rest rather than bringing them back in a way that feels distasteful.