Zack Snyder Uses Digital Wizardry to Replace Key Character in Netflix’s Army of the Dead with Another Actor

[Tsing]

Image: Netflix



Netflix released Zack Snyder’s new Las Vegas-based zombie heist film, Army of the Dead, on Friday. What some viewers may not have realized is that the director and his special effects team managed to pull off something that seemed nigh impossible—replacing an actor in a key role after the movie had already been shot and deep into post production. Snyder was faced with this challenge after comedian Chris D’Elia was dropped from the film due to controversy, but thanks to some digital wizardry that involved re-creating every scene shot for shot and lots of green screen, the director was able to insert Tig Notaro’s character, helicopter pilot Marianne Peters, seamlessly into Army of the Dead to make it look as if she was really working alongside Dave Bautista and many of the original cast...

Continue reading...

 

[Denpepe]

As far as zombie flicks go this one was pretty good imho although a bit slow and predictable at times

 

[MadMummy76]

I'd sue. I mean you shoot a movie with me, then erase me from it? I'm pretty sure that's a lawsuit right there, unless he gets paid in full regardless of the erasure, but even then he can sue for damages to his reputation.

 

[rat]

I'd sue. I mean you shoot a movie with me, then erase me from it? I'm pretty sure that's a lawsuit right there, unless he gets paid in full regardless of the erasure, but even then he can sue for damages to his reputation.

Work for hire means there is no obligation to ensure you're in the end product, bro. People get cut from movies for any possible reason all the time. The damages to his reputation are his own. If you want to wield that sword, the studio can sue him for the extra expense of removing him from the film due to his reputation becoming a problem for the film.

 

[MadMummy76]

Work for hire means there is no obligation to ensure you're in the end product, bro. People get cut from movies for any possible reason all the time. The damages to his reputation are his own. If you want to wield that sword, the studio can sue him for the extra expense of removing him from the film due to his reputation becoming a problem for the film.

No such thing as ah, we don't like you no more we don't pay, despite of you doing the job. Even if he was convicted of anything, you think convicts never can have a paid job for the remainder of their life let alone retroactively to the past?

And besides he was not convicted of anything, there is still such a thing as presumed innocent until proven guilty. So in front of law, there is zero things the studio can rely on. Accusations are not proof, and I really hope I don't have to tell you what kind of slippery slope that would be if we allowed accusations and feelings into evidence. And I'm not even sure that unwelcome advances are criminal to begin with. Heck is wasn't even unwelcome, as all the accusers willingly participated despite knowing who they were messaging.

The fact that hollywood treats accusations as a guilty verdict is the real problem.

 

[Armenius]

No such thing as ah, we don't like you no more we don't pay, despite of you doing the job. Even if he was convicted of anything, you think convicts never can have a paid job for the remainder of their life let alone retroactively to the past?

And besides he was not convicted of anything, there is still such a thing as presumed innocent until proven guilty. So in front of law, there is zero things the studio can rely on. Accusations are not proof, and I really hope I don't have to tell you what kind of slippery slope that would be if we allowed accusations and feelings into evidence. And I'm not even sure that unwelcome advances are criminal to begin with. Heck is wasn't even unwelcome, as all the accusers willingly participated despite knowing who they were messaging.

The fact that hollywood treats accusations as a guilty verdict is the real problem.

That's my thing. Was he actually found to have solicited child porn and prosecuted for it, or was it the same old trial by public jury again?

 

[MadMummy76]

That's my thing. Was he actually found to have solicited child porn and prosecuted for it, or was it the same old trial by public jury again?

He asked a 17 year old to send him making out picures. Hardly child porn, especially since last I checked the age of consent was 16 in the US. He might not even have been aware that the girl was 17 at the time.

Now is that something I support? No, asking for making out pictures over social media is creepy even if you ask it from an adult imho. But I don't believe it should be a criminal offence, or career ending one.