The Cameos (SPOILERS)

[The Laughing Fish]

The more I read about this issue, the more I think that Hollywood unions are fine in their place. I don't mind them. But the REAL solution here needs to be federal legislation to protect the likeness of all people. In today's world, virtually anybody can arguably be viewed as a public person. If you have a social media presence or even if you have a podcast with only two or three subscribers, are you now a public person? With today's technology, that's all wide open to debate.

There is an AI-generated website where you can create human-sounding voiceovers that allows you to manipulate a wide range of accents. This even includes manipulating the emphasis of certain words spoken in a sentence. Never mind voice acting, it seems not even podcasting and public speaking jobs are safe.

There should've been a much stronger reaction as soon as deepfake technology reached the mainstream consciousness four years ago. Instead, apps such as Reface were made available to the public and encouraged everyone to take a selfie and map over their own faces on a character in an animated GIF. Even I was guilty of using Reface for fun until I realised I could be exposing my likeness to the entire internet when I didn't want to, so I deleted the app from my phone.

If governments all over the world cared about people's privacy and safety, this tech would've been heavily scrutinised and roadblocked from further development, and maybe AI wouldn't have been developed as quickly as it has now. Back in 2019, I remember hearing about a site that mimicked the voice of clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson was shut down due to public backlash. Now, deepfaking voices and appearances of ANY person - famous or otherwise - are becoming commonplace, without much resistance.

Because of this, this is an even greater risk than ever before that this tech will be abused (if it somehow hasn't already) to commit deception, identity theft, and unwanted pornographic material. That last bit alone automatically violates privacy and consent. It's incredibly disturbing.

I know someone who was an extra in the TV show Veronica Mars. He popped up in the background of something like six or seven different episodes. He was between jobs at the time, he needed the money and he was in school for film production. So, he thought that being an extra in a TV show would be good experience and education for him. He was right too. He learned a LOT just watching stuff happen on the Veronica Mars set. But at the same time, he never signed on to eternally give his likeness away to some gigantic media conglomerate. He's a private person, notwithstanding his multiple appearances on a low budget TV show with miniscule ratings.

I'm usually not one to call for more laws to be created. But in this specific case, I think we need federal law to take a stand on this. It's not just for actors and entertainers. In the long run, it's for the good of everybody.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Silver Nemesis]

I recently read the prescient science fiction novel Remake by Connie Willis after one of my favourite YouTube reviewers recommended it, and when contemplating its themes I couldn't help thinking about The Flash.

The book takes place in a future Hollywood where filmmaking has become entirely computerised. The big studios are buying up the smaller production companies so that only a few conglomerates now monopolise the industry. They no longer shoot live action footage, but instead simply remake or sequelise old films using elements digitally harvested from pre-existing footage. This leads to constant litigation over the legality of using deceased actors in new movies, but the studios are able to get around this and insert dead performers into new productions. Old films are digitally censored to remove objectionable elements such as cigarettes or alcohol – in some cases completely ruining plots and character arcs – and special 'happy ending' cuts are made available in which movies with downbeat endings have their conclusions altered. Meanwhile Hollywood itself is populated by soulless drones trying to make themselves look like dead stars and numbing their senses with alcohol, drugs and meaningless sex.

Willis published this book in 1995, and it's eerie how accurately she predicted the current state of the film industry. She anticipated the increasingly destructive role that computer technology would play in moviemaking (I imagine she was inspired by the innovative tech showcased in movies like T2 and Jurassic Park, but also by nineties adverts that utilised footage of dead actors), as well as the death of the modern movie star and the studio obsession with recycling pre-existing IP rather than creating new stories. The book's themes touch upon censorship, the preservation of art and the ethics of exploiting deceased actors, and that latter theme is where it really connects with The Flash. In the Flash we saw no fewer than three deceased actors – George Reeves, Christopher Reeve and Adam West – resurrected via computer technology; all for a movie that largely recycled ideas and characters that have been depicted better in earlier productions.

It's almost as though Willis had glimpsed the state of Hollywood in 2023 and decided to write a dystopian novel about it 28 years earlier. And while I hate to admit it, there aren't many movies that better encapsulate that sorry state than The Flash.

[thecolorsblend]

The ultimate act of rebellion would be an independent director adapting Remake into a feature film. Fat chance, I know.

But a boy can dream.

To your point tho, man, that books sounds like a great read.

[The Laughing Fish]

Nicolas Cage said the footage he shot for his Superman cameo was NOT shown in the final cut; it was scrapped in favour of the spider fight cameo, which was completely computer-generated.

What I was supposed to do was literally just be standing in an alternate dimension, if you will, and witnessing the destruction of the universe," Cage explained. "Kal-El was bearing witness [to] the end of a universe, and you can imagine with that short amount of time that I had, what that would mean in terms of what I can convey. I had no dialogue [so had to] convey with my eyes the emotion. So that's what I did. I was on set for maybe three hours.

When I went to the picture, it was me fighting a giant spider," Cage said. "I did not do that. That was not what I did. I don't think it was [created by] AI. I know Tim [Burton] is upset about AI, as I am. It was CGI, OK, so that they could de-age me, and I'm fighting a spider. I didn't do any of that, so I don't know what happened there.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/nicolas-cage-ai-inhumane-cgi-changed-superman-flash-cameo-1235776876/

The Yahoo! link in that article quoted Cage saying they even designed the Superman Lives costume. What a waste of time and money.

If you look at the video embedded in the Yahoo! link, Cage doesn't seem too impressed with the CGI cameo, despite praising Muschietti and his two IT films. I joked in another thread about this AI-generated edited video of Cage reacting to the Superman cameo, but it's possible the punchline in the end is what he really thinks.

[The Laughing Fish]

George Clooney was quoted saying "there aren't enough drugs in the world to get him to play Batman again", thus confirming that his cameo is a one-time thing. In some ways, I can't blame him for taking a quick paycheck from a studio that's recklessly wasting money. But a part of me wishes he didn't do it, knowing this was a suspicious little in-joke by the heads of DC Studios.

Which brings me to what James Gunn has said about cameos in general:

While speaking to fans on Threads earlier this week, Gunn highlighted the negative impact of meaningless cameos, in response to a fan's frustration about characters appearing for just a few seconds on screen "to mark a checkbox".

"I call that 'Cameo Porn' and it has been one of the worst elements of recent superhero films," he replied.

"If a character is in a film, they have to have a reason to be there story-wise."

Gunn soon clarified: "I don't mind actual cameos – if it's a glimpse or a moment, an Easter egg.

"What bothers me is when they mangle an elegant story by shoehorning characters in – they aren't there because the story calls for it, but for some other reason."

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/james-gunn-criticises-cameo-porn-144800892.html

This same clown says this as if nobody remembered the high praise he gave for that flop, that was the definition of cameo porn:

"Like it's one of the best superhero movies I've ever seen. [Director] Andy Muschietti did an amazing job."

"Can I say one more thing? The Flash is f**king amazing," Gunn said to reporters.

And while you could argue Gunn isn't in a position to be super objective about any of the upcoming DC films he still needs to promote, he has been very honest and transparent this entire time. His enthusiasm for The Flash stands out.

https://www.motionpictures.org/2023/02/james-gunn-says-the-flash-is-one-of-the-best-superhero-movies-hes-ever-seen

LOL, what a load of embarrassing bullsh*t! Particularly the last bit. Plus, do I need to remind everyone that Gunn, along with Safran, was the reason why that pointless Clooney cameo happened to begin with? Gunn is so full of sh*t, it's laughable.

Now, I realise some people may get tired of me complaining about Gunn, but it's important to call him out for his deceitfulness.

[The Laughing Fish]

Christopher Reeve's kids were asked about the Superman cameo while they were promoting a new documentary celebrating their father's career and life. They revealed they had no involvement in the cameo and haven't watched The Flash.

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/christopher-reeves-children-the-flash-cameo-1235880290/

If none of the children had a say in recreating their dad's likeness, then who did? Did the studio decide to do it without asking anyone's permission?