Alien: Romulus’ Original Character Return Leaves Audiences Divided Only4Media.com

Warning: Major SPOILERS lie ahead for Alien: Romulus!

Summary

• The CGI use of deceased actor Ian Holm in
  Alien: Romulus
  has left fans divided, with some audiences calling it ”
  shameful and gross
  “.
• The trend of reviving dead actors with CGI in major franchises like
  Star Wars
  and
  Ghostbusters
  has been criticized as disrespectful.
• With Holm’s CGI cameo also being disconnected from his original character and having a lot of screen time, the divisive reaction may be needed to put a stop to this trend.

Even as it sees some of the best reviews of the franchise, one character’s return in Alien: Romulus is not being well received by audiences. The latest installment in the sci-fi horror movie series takes place between Ridley Scott and James Cameron’s beloved first two movies, centering on a group of space colonists who venture to a derelict space station in the hopes of setting off on a new life, only to inadvertently become the prey of xenomorphs and facehuggers. Led by Cailee Spaeny and David Jonsson, Alien: Romulus has garnered largely positive reviews from critics and audiences alike and is off to a strong box office start.

Now that audiences have had the chance to see the film, though, many have taken to social media to share their frustrations over Alien: Romulus using CGI to bring Ian Holm back to play a new synthetic human, Rook. Though the sentiment remains positive on the movie as a whole, most users are calling the decision “shameful and gross” and pointing out the “disgusting” Hollywood trend of reviving dead actors with CGI. Check out some audience reactions below:

@JohnDiLillo humorously quote-tweeted a post from an interview Isabella Merced gave in which she described the movie’s ending as being disgusting enough the cast and crew had to turn away, remarking that she was actually referring to Holm’s cameo and “didn’t want to spoil it for the fans.”

@ArbysCouponPDF also went the quote-tweet route with resharing a video post co-writer/director Fede Álvarez shared of the movie’s practical sets, lamenting that he “cannot comprehend” why the creative team elected for a CGI Holm cameo after the promise of practical effects.

@Takoberu2002 shared bootleg stills of the CGI recreation of Holm from the movie, going on to express they would not be seeing the movie “because of this” and calling it “theft of someones face for a s—-y audience moment“. Read the user’s full caption below:

I won’t be seeing the movie because of this. This is theft of someones face for a s—-y audience moment. Ian Holm is dead, he cannot consent to this. People in the replies to op are complaining about spoilers? Cry about it. Vote with your wallet if you think it’s okay to do this.

@tylercoates offered a brief, yet blunt, reaction to the decision, calling it “so shameful and gross“.

@gallingcrow expressed their incredulity at the inability to talk about the movie’s decision to go with the CGI casting, calling it the “most disrespectful thing” seen in a studio film, while also being unsure “if the blame lies with Alvarez or Disney.”

@ashleynaftule similarly called the CGI cameo “the ugliest, cheapest “Remember this guy” nostalgia slop” to come from any franchise, and feeling “it’s embarrassing” some audiences are defending it.

@abs_sweetmarie kept their reaction blunt and concise, calling it “one of the worst f—-in things” they’ve ever seen in their life.

@garebear_11 admitted to a CGI Holm cameo as being “4th down my list” of late actors that Hollywood would “dig up their corpse and make it dance for money“, and expressed feeling “disgusted by it“.

@doseyourdreams offered a somewhat different opinion from the general consensus, calling it more frustrating due to certain shots leaving him “obscured” as the effect “looked decent“, though did express that the “close-ups were wretched and unnecessary“.

@Papapishu also had a more reserved feeling on the CGI effect, acknowledging that while it “looks awful“, it does also “work better than you’d think” due to the character’s status as a “half dead synthetic“. The user also laments that because the character is in the movie “a LOT“, it became “depressing“.

Ian Holm’s Alien: Romulus Role Continues A Negative Hollywood Trend

Though once used sparingly in order to finish movies that actors were in the middle of making prior to their deaths, CGI recreations of late stars has become a more frequent trend in major franchises in recent years. Lucasfilm essentially began this trend with both Peter Cushing’s Grand Moff Tarkin and Carrie Fisher’s Princess Leia being recreated in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. The studio took things a step further when the latter was brought back in a supporting role for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, despite initial reports assuring she would not be digitally recreated following her death.

Other studios have similarly attempted to deliver on the nostalgia expected of their franchises with major actors brought back following their deaths. Ghostbusters: Afterlife infamously recreated Harold Ramis digitally for a ghostly Egon Spengler cameo in the movie’s final moments, while The Flash‘s climactic multiverse montage saw Christopher Reeve brought back via CGI to appear as Superman alongside Helen Slater’s Supergirl. While these movies have seen a variety of responses from critics and audiences alike, the general response to these CGI recreations has been largely divisive, with some appreciating them as a tribute while others feel them to be cash grabs.

As evidenced by the reactions to Holm’s return in Alien: Romulus, it seems like this trend of bringing back dead actors via CGI is in need of coming to an end sooner than later. The fact that Holm didn’t even return as his original character, Ash, but instead as an entirely new character and was in the movie for half of its runtime further cements the doubts surrounding the decision to include him. Given the movie also bridged the timeline of Ridley Scott’s Alien prequels and the original movies, it seems like trying to get Michael Fassbender’s David back may have been a better choice.

Sources: Various [see links above]