Rant …
spoiler
I’m talking about Ash/Rook, obviously.
Just saw the film recently, and while it’s a bit of a love it or hate it film I think, the Rook character is I think objectively egregious.
The idea is good, IMO, in a number of ways, and I can understand that the film makers felt like it was all done with love and affection for Holm and the character. As a viewer, not necessarily onboard with how many cues the film was taking from the franchise, I noticed the silhouette of Rook pretty quickly and was quite happy/hyped to see where it would go.
But OMG the execution is unforgivable! And I feel like this is just so much of what’s wrong with Hollywood and VFX, and also indicates that some execs were definitely intervening in this film. Somewhat fortunately for the film, it had a low budget (AFAICT, by Wikipedia) and is making a profit.
But it’s no excuse to slap some bad CGI onto shots that were not designed for bad CGI. Close ups on the uncanny valley! Come on! AFAICT, bad CGI is often the result of a complete disconnect between the director and the VFX crew, in part because the VFX industry is kept at arms length from the film industry, despite (it because of) its massive importance.
That CGI is not something you do a close up on. No remotely decent director would have done that knowing the CGI looked like that. This is likely bad studio management creating an unworkable situation.
What could have worked much better IMO is don’t have the synth functioning well. Have its facial expressions and movements completely artificial and mechanical. Rely on the likeness of Holm and the AI voice (which did and generally do work well). Could have been done just with a well directed animatronic coupled with some basic CGI to enrich some textures and details. Instead we got a dumb “we’ll do it in post” and tortured some poor editor into cutting those shots together.
For many the film was a mixed bag. For me too. But this somehow prevents me from embracing it because I just don’t trust the people who made it.
… End rant.
That's exactly what they did. A full head animatronic of Ian Holm's likeness was built.
People who claimed to have been at a preview screening say the effect was fully practical, but that it was also a little distracting because it looked like a "muppet" (Their words, not mine.)
So in the intervening time between previews and release, they have used AI and CGI to apparently make the eyes and lip sync movement smoother for a better effect.
I agree it looks jarring in the film and I would personally like to see the raw practical shots to see how it looked beforehand.
I could mostly tell which shots were the puppet and which were CG, and the combined effect was jarring. A few shots looked fantastic, but they were the exceptions. If this were a short scene or cameo, it would have been fine. But he turns into a major character, and it's a major failing of the director to not have the effects nailed down when it's so central to the film.
There's also no reason at all that it had to be Ian Holm, other than misguided continuity porn. Him being the same model as Ash has zero bearing whatsoever on either this story or the lore as a whole.
I don't think this is true. It connects what's happening on Romulus/Remus station with the Nostromo and heavily implies that Ash was always on the Nostromo because it was always intended to rendezvous with the planet/moon (LV-426) and that the Ash model was in some way ideal for or dedicated to the xeno/goo research program.
I can't recall the exact details, but from Rook's info-dump we know he is aware of the events in Prometheus to some extent, in which case it makes sense that WY were aware of something valuable being out there. It's explicit in Alien that Ash was added to the crew last minute and so it's clearly implied that his ulterior motives originated from before the launch of the Nostromo. That Rook is the same model adds weight to this.
It also kinda widens the range of things happening simultaneously in the alien universe in a relatively organic fashion. David (prometheus) could still be out there or his ship in some way, and Rain is now out there, and they both have the black-goo, plus the planet in Engineer planet in Covenant, the planet in Prometheus, the surviving Queen from Aliens (?) and maybe the ship from LV-426 survives the nuclear blast to some extent ... all within decent time-proximity that some creative license could easily leverage.
I mean I get the supposed justification for it, but all of those things you talk about are the very definition of continuity porn. All that could have been achieved just as well with another android model referencing Ash and his mission by name, or by a version of the Ash model that was more physically damaged to the point where it pushed him past the uncanny valley and onto a more unsettling peak. Imagine if his face had been acidified and we were seeing a sort of Mason Verger version of him instead, and when Andy uploads his implant, he takes on the mannerisms of Ian Holm's Ash, as if he were possessed. Lean into the horror of it more.
Yea I agree, a simpler approach could have been taken. Though I don’t think any of the film’s fan service was intended to be subtle.
I personally liked the appearance of an Ash type synth. I think it adds weight to the sense of synchronicity of Romulus and Alien 1. Shame about the execution of it and the focus they put on it, of course.
Totally agree. The parts where the model was shadowed looked okay but then BOOM cg shots where the mouth kinda floats on the head.
And ultimately you’re right! …but I’m still conflicted. It did not need to be Ash. That was just BS fan service… BUT having the same android does cement a through line, a type of connective tissue that communicates how weyland-yutani have had a constant eye on this species the whole time. Basically visual shorthand to say that since Alien 1 the corp has had eyeballs.
Yea interesting. I’d bet the animatronic also landed somewhere in the uncanny valley. Which is why I feel like the problem is that they wanted to put a spot light on the character. The better option is to cleverly obscure it just enough. Broken mechanics/manerisms as I suggested would be one way … shadows another. Full on close ups were not the right choice. In the end it was probably a misstep by a director not experienced enough with that sort of effect.
To be honest, it looks about as good / bad as all the other deepfake face swaps I've seen, in and outside of commercial media. It's just nowhere as good & convincing as some people would claim it to be in those various "AI" hysteria articles.