It’s Day 30. This count will get much more interesting in a couple days.
Personal News
I woke up rough and considered calling in sick. I made it through most of the day, but then a headache hit me around lunch time and didn’t subside. After SCRUM, I took a nap and slept until almost 5PM. I feel better. I must not be getting enough sleep.
The Topic: Bringing Back the Dead on Screen
There is a new Ghost Busters movie coming out, and the trailer looks pretty good to me. On YouTube, I watch a bunch of videos on New Rockstars, and today they posted a breakdown of the trailer. At the end of the video, Erik Voss gave his opinion on the SAG rules and what he thought of recreating Harold Ramis.
Here is that video, hopefully right where Erik talks about this:
If you don’t want to or can’t watch that clip, Erik is basically saying:
- The SAG rules don’t go far enough in protecting actors from being necromanced by greedy studios
- Consent from the living relatives isn’t enough, because who can say what the relationship is between the deceased and their kin?
- Instead of using VFX to recreate deceased actors, recast with actors that look similar, and maybe don’t show their face
Naturally, I have some thoughts.
I’ll start with the second point. I’m not sure that it’s a great idea to assume the worst with regards to familial relationships. If there is no evidence of estrangement, why would we assume estrangement exists? Are we trying to protect the deceased? If so, paying their families what the actor would normally be paid seems like it would be a kindness.
If that point is muddled, maybe this one is better: if an actor’s living relatives are allowed to say whether they live or die when they’re in a vegetative state, I think those same living relatives should be able to say whether or not the actor’s likeness can be used after they’re gone.
Let’s tie this in with the first point: the greed of the studios. If you want to address the greed, then use the point I just suggested, which is the actor’s estate should be paid just as much for using the likeness as the actor would be paid if they were still alive. When you factor in the cost of VFX and the potential backlash the studios will face for resurrecting beloved actors in this way, the greedy studios will have to think long and hard as to whether or not their necromancy is worth it.
Third point… they already wind up using other actors to stand in for the deceased. Whether it is make-up, VFX, or clever camera angles, the new actor isn’t really getting great exposure or the opportunity to shine. I think that’s ultimately what Erik Voss is angling for with that point. Let the dead lie, and celebrate the living. Let new actors have a chance to take the stage.
I do think we should be looking to tell new stories and make new things. One of the reasons the years seem funny, that 1995 feels like it was 10 years ago and not nearly 30, is because I’m old. But another reason is that movies and music have sort of stalled out. The digital media doesn’t degrade. With streaming services, all of the old content is available in perpetuity. Before The Internet, we had tapes and CDs, but we also listened to the radio for new things. Now you can create a playlist in 2011 and still be listening to it 13 years later, without losing fidelity.
It feels harder to find new things these days. Movies are in a similar rut, in that the studios mostly just keep revisiting existing franchises and banking on nostalgia. We get a couple of morsels of something new every year, like Barbie and Oppenheimer, but then a glut of remakes, rebrands, and retreads. Kind of like the Ghost Busters movie that’s getting ready to come out, that spawned this post in the first place.
Anyway. I’ll stop shouting at the clouds. Let me know if I’m way off base, here.