Anika Begay
This post contains spoilers for the movie “Alien: Romulus”
In the long-running “Alien” film series, the Weyland-Yutani Corporation can’t seem to let go of one terrible idea: It continues to try to profit from the xenomorphs, creatures with acid for blood and a propensity to violently burst out of their human hosts. The corporation is fixated on capturing and weaponizing the aliens, viewing them as potential resources despite their uncontrollable nature.
No matter how many times they fail and how many people die in the process, every time the company stumbles upon these aliens, it keeps saying: “This timewe’ll make it work.”
Unfortunately, as much as I enjoyed “Alien: Romulus” (and I enjoyed it a lot!), the new sequel (or “interquel”) cannot escape one terrible idea: Hollywood’s fixation with using CGI to rejuvenate or resurrect beloved actors.
De-aging was more common, as directors tried to simulate a younger Harrison Ford in “Indiana Jones and the Second Part,” a younger Will Smith in “Gemini Man,” or a younger Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in “The Irishman.”
But effects have also been used to bring actors and characters back to life, like Peter Cushing’s Grand Moff Tarkin in “Rogue One.” “Alien: Romulus” attempts a similar trick: While it doesn’t resurrect the exact same android assassin as the original “Alien,” it does feature an identical model, apparently played by the same actor, Ian Holm, who died in 2020.
The filmmakers told Variety that they brought Holm’s likeness to the screen using animatronics and a performance by actor Daniel Betts, and there’s obvious CGI. Since replacing actors with digital dummies was a hot topic in last year’s actors’ strike, it’s no surprise that “Romulus” director Fede Álvarez recalled hearing similar comments during filming: “I remember someone saying, ‘Here we are, they’re going to replace us as actors.’”
But for Álvarez these fears are exaggerated.
“‘Man, if I hire you, it costs me one person’s money,’” he told Variety. “‘To make that happen, you have to hire literally 45 people. And you still have to hire an actor to do the performance!’”
So, from a fundamental perspective, working actors may not have much to worry about… yet. And there’s this: every example I’ve seen, including “Romulus,” seems Terrible.
I’m sure there are a lot of talented visual effects artists working on these effects, and I’m sure they’ve made some progress over the years. There’s almost something noble about the way they keep throwing themselves at the problem, only to get the same uncanny valley results. No matter how close they’ve gotten to the real thing, I’ve never seen a de-aged actor or a digital ghost that wasn’t immediately obvious. Each one of them makes me aware of their artificiality for every second they’re on screen.
“Romulus” provided a particularly raw demonstration. When audiences first glimpsed Holm’s new/old character, Rook, his face was obscured. We only saw him from behind and from the side, heard a familiar, distorted voice, and it was creepingThe hint did all the work, no digital resurrection was necessary (at least not visually).
Then, unfortunately, the film switched to his face and I immediately groaned in recognition. Instead of focusing on the obvious CGI on the screen, my mind wandered, imagining a studio executive saying, “This timewe’ll make it work.”
