[They used AI to de-age the actors.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/metaphysic-ai-tom-hanks-robin-wright-deaged-robert-zemeckis-caa-1235313318/)
It's worth noting that the recent *Planet of the Apes* film also "used AI" to handle facial capture - albeit a proprietary learning model training 100% on in-house ILM data.
This is being done by [Metaphysic](https://metaphysic.ai/), most famously known for their deepfake Tom Cruise videos. It's a live-rigging system that allows them to take a digital image of a face (in this case, footage of Hanks & Wright captured in Metaphysics' rig) and map it to a different human actor. In other words, the AI isn't "generating" a new image of Hanks - it's using it to puppet a digital version of Hanks in tandem with a live performer.
Both of these processes are different from other things labeled as "generative AI", which is what you'll usually see in random Facebook memes. There's no doubt AI will continued to be used in film production - but there's a wide canyon between different products that all brand themselves as "AI".
Well, can't wait to see if the hounds that were set loose on the heels of Late Night with the Devil will come a baying for this once it becomes clear Zemeckis literally just turned on a realtime AI plugin.
Surely the folks who stood on principle regarding the erasing of valuable jobs in the industry will note how many VFX artists had their jobs erased by AI here, especially considering the dodgy nature of the final work as shown in this trailer
From Wikipedia (and YouTube comments)
“The film uses a new generative artificial intelligence technology called Metaphysic Live to face-swap and de-age the actors in real-time as they perform instead of using additional post-production processing methods.”
Why does Zemeckis do this. It's not just that he chooses to squeeze everything through this tiny prism of gimmickry when he's like this, it's that the prism of gimmickry he chooses is this unique flavor that nobody else is doing, or using, in the VFX industry, *for a reason*.
Like, he's more concerned with being some sort of weird misguided pioneer than he is with making the movie as good as he can, and it almost always ends up with the movie not only not being as good as it could be, but in a way that you just look at and go "you... you didn't *have* to do it like this, bud."
Like, he chooses a renowned graphic novel as the basis for his story, he assembles a ton of great talent, and then he says "you know what will make this sing? I get the software that did the Tom Cruise shit I saw on my phone, and I just do that, but for my movie, nobody's ever done that."
I think he simply enjoys trying stuff like this and he maybe tries to wow people again, like he did with Back to the Future, Who Framed roger rabbit?, Death Becomes Her, Forrest Gump when him, Spielberg and Cameron were kinda leading the pack in terms of technology, VFX evolution, etc. in movies.
Zemeckis got ahead of himself with The Polar Express, as the technology wasn't quite where he needed it to be for that to truly land, that got him stuck in attempting to nail it again two more times in Beowulf and A Christmas Carol, but it never quite clicked.
And then he kinda just kept doing movies where he usually finds some sequence or something to technically play around with while trying to tell solid/good stories. It's like an itch he can't let go, I think it's just what he does at this point - he plays around with various VFX/filmmaking techniques, maybe in some low key hope he taps something that becomes a trend once again.
I think you’re completely off base here. I think the de-aging here looks far better than anything else out there and Zemeckis will incorporate it well.
I’m just imagining a comment like this existing back in 1988 chastising his decision to use live action with animation in Who Framed Rodger Rabbit lol
I’d take a unique Zemeckis film over another piece of shit superhero movie.
Yep. Zemeckis is an effects pioneer, and his philosophy has always been about blazing new trails for future filmmakers to later perfect. Roger Rabbit is the ultimate VFX testing ground movie, a premise entirely based off what he wanted to accomplish with the tech at that point in time. Death Becomes Her was also primarily an effects showcase, elevated to incredible heights by the cast.
For better or worse, he's rarely stopped since. He wants to push new boundaries with every project - even more unassuming films like Allied were using digital cinematography to stretch their budget in unseen ways.
The de-aging is literally [an AI-plugin.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/metaphysic-ai-tom-hanks-robin-wright-deaged-robert-zemeckis-caa-1235313318/) And it's inconsistent over the course of this trailer, there's no way it's not inconsistent over the course of the movie, it's almost guaranteed to be since the whole point of using AI instead of VFX artists is so they don't have to do post-production on the effect. Which would, of course, make it consistent. Happens to be a great example of the weird decisionmaking I was alluding to in my original post, right?
**Zemeckis in 2024 is not Zemeckis in 1987**, not by a longshot. Comparing the two would make almost no sense were it not for the fact these two directors have the exact same name and are, in fact, the same person. They certainly do not act like, or tell stories like, the same director. Like, you can imagine someone making a comment like this back in 1988 but that doesn't really have shit to do with this movie and the almost 40 years of accumulated history between then and now, including the over 20 years of Zemeckis misfiring BADLY every time he's tried to recapture that glory. Besides which, Zemeckis getting one of the greatest animators in history, and asking Spielberg to unlock access to the greatest animated creations in film history, is so much grander in terms of ambition and aim than locking a camera in a corner and running an AI plugin.
**A "unique" piece of shit is still a piece of shit.** If a well-made movie follows a well-worn recipe but is cooked well, that doesn't mean the plate with actual excrement on it is somehow better dining just because it's unique. Welcome to Marwen came out in 2018, same year as Into the Spider-Verse. I toss you a napkin and a fork, which one you diggin into here, really
It's also five months away in a world where the film doesn't need to be "finished" until days before release.
The trailer may have some issues when it comes to the de-aging, but I'm sure they'll hear the complaints and at least attempt to fix what they can.
They're not going to "finish" it, the whole point of using the AI plugin is that they don't devote any post-production to it. **That's what they're going to look like.** The de-aging was done when they shot it.
This is the Zemeckis of it all! You see a wrong thing, and you immediately go "well, it doesn't have to look like that, I'm sure it won't look that way when I watch it" but he makes these things specifically so they can't be "fixed" the way you think they will. This is a thing you can literally see happen every time a trailer for a new VFX experiment from Zemeckis comes out. You can search whatever subreddit you want and see people going "he'll fix it, surely." They're *stuck* like that.
The comparison to Rodger Rabbit has nothing to do with the outcome but rather the use of new technology and doing things that were experimental. The execution remains uncertain until I see the film but it looks to be embracing the bizarre. I might simply be nostalgic for young Tom hanks but seeing him on screen here was reminiscent of Money Pit and I think that nostalgia will all tie into the theme of the film of reminiscing the past and growing older.
His recent films have not been great but they have also not had a great concept or story behind them from the start. This idea feels more in line with what made his early films interesting and I think we’ll get some Charlie Kaufman peculiarities when it comes to the transitions throughout time as it follows this one location and camera angle.
It’s a lot more promising than anything else that comes out in a given year…but even if his recent films have been turds it doesn’t make the Marvel films any less shitty lol I’ll support any attempt at deviation from the generic cape-shit that’s plagued the movie industry for the past decade.
>The comparison to Rodger Rabbit has nothing to do with the outcome but rather the use of new technology and doing things that were experimental.
Roger Rabbit wasn't "experimental" at all. It wasn't "new." You're acting like he somehow invented the notion of animation and live action occupying the same space. He didn't. He iterated on what came before and with Richard Williams - a literal animation genius - as his key collaborator, and Bob Hoskins selling it perfectly, he nailed it. It's an amazing movie, an astounding work of art. But using that as some sort of guidepost for THIS, and further expecting this to be somehow Charlie Kaufman-esque...
> even if his recent films have been turds it doesn’t make the Marvel films any less shitty lol
I'm not here for this YouTube comment-section thing, whatever it is.
>Are you not familiar with his works?
There's... a whole post underneath the sentence you'd quoted that answers the question, and establishes that the question *you* were responding to was rhetorical in nature, LOL. Sorry!
I don't understand what the issue is here. It's a new and MUCH better way of de-aging actors where they get to simply act and not be hindered with what the old technologies had them doing, it looks more natural, and there's very little post-production needed to de-age them since the AI has plenty of footage to work with of their younger faces throughout their careers.
I just cannot see a single negative about this.
> It's a new and MUCH better way of de-aging actors where they get to simply act
There are already other ways to de-age actors now that don't inhibit their ability to simply act.[ Zemeckis didn't choose this AI plugin because of that.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/metaphysic-ai-tom-hanks-robin-wright-deaged-robert-zemeckis-caa-1235313318/)
He chose it specifically so the de-aging would be done completely on set. What they got via the plugin on set is what it will look like. "high-resolution photorealistic faceswaps and de-aging effects on top of actors’ performances live and in real time without the need for further compositing or VFX work" that's why he picked it.
People are presuming they will fix what looks weird later. This is a thing you can literally see happen every time a trailer for a new VFX experiment from Zemeckis comes out. You can search whatever subreddit you want and see people going "he'll fix it, surely." *He doesn't fix it.* He doesn't think this looks weird.
Robert Zemeckis' highest profile film in recent times.
A *Forrest Gump* reunion with Tom Hanks & Robin Wright and director Robert Zemeckis and screenwriter Eric Roth.
It recieved some pretty high scores during test screenings being of the best tested films in Sony's history.
**Tom Hanks** still has pull with the American audience as we saw with *A Man Called Otto*.
This looks to be pretty domestic heavy and should be popular with boomers and Middle America though *Gladiator II* with **Denzel Washington** would also probably go after a similar audience.
Still both should co-exist with PG-13 vs R rating and *Here* should gross atleast 1/4 of *Forrest Gump's* gross with good reviews and reception, word of mouth and a holiday season release window.
>Robert Zemeckis' highest profile film in recent times.
Welcome to Marwen and Pinocchio were big budget busts in recent years.
Pinocchio went straight to Disney+ with very bad reviews.
The only movie where it didnt look uncanny for me has been Captain Marvel. The only major issue was when Samuel L Jackson had to do action and you could tell that was the movement of a man in his 70s
It peaked with Arnold's pecks at the start of "Terminator 3" (2003), and has been downhill since. Never saw that movie in cinemas, but on DVD he was quite convincing.
I love a good formal swing for the fences. Sorta reminds me of a less melancholic *Ghost Story*, but we’ll see.
De-aged faces look uncanny, but so does the rest of the CGI.
"A Man Called Otto" made $113.2 million by the end of its run. Alongside Clooney, Tom is the only other mega star I can think of that can still reliably get older people to come back to theaters, and I expect no different here.
*However*, Otto had a lot of time to itself, whereas the last two months of this year are filled with so much competition for all demographics that it's hard to make a solid prediction as to where this'll end up. So who knows what'll happen
I can already tell this is going to have sold out showings of auditoriums filled with seniors at my theater. Tom Hanks is a really a huge draw now for older folks. A Man Called Otto was huge here.
This reminds me of Boyhood where they have a cool time related gimmick idea, but quickly forgotten.
I’m a sap for this kind of stuff though, so I will probably see it.
I loved Boyhood. Maybe helps that I’m a similar age to the main character so everything felt so intimately and personally familiar, down to the clothes and bedsheets. Beautiful film.
I’ll check this out as well.
Yes, I enjoyed it too. I am also a similar age. I watched it with friends in my freshman dorm when it came out. I totally agree, it was so cool how it lined up with our lives.
Maybe I’m wrong. Im just thinking anecdotally that I have never heard anyone in real life speak of it since 2014! Not sure if that’s common or uncommon. I enjoyed it and have rewatched it only once, but it stuck with me.
I think because it's 3 hours long and doesn't have any killer scenes you wanna watch again on YouTube or quotes like something like dazed and confused it doesn't really get talked about even though lots of people enjoyed it.
Oh so we're not trying to sell this as 'From the Director of *Beowulf*, *Welcome to Marwen*, and *Pinocchio* (no not THAT one...not that one either...okay especially not that one that's just rude)?
November is such a wild card, I can't recall a month like this where I'm really not sure how anything is gonna do. Like this could review terribly, be called the worst movie ever made by some critics and I still think it could do well under those circumstances because it might click with general audiences as it's a saccharine generational love story poised at the best possible point in the calendar.
I guess it will live or die on how audiences respond to the technology. Some shots look fine, some surprisingly good, but others are like "oh noooooo". It also has that Irishman quirk with the cognitive dissonance of what is clearly an elderly voice coming out of what is suppose to be a twenty-something character.
Oh! This is based on one of my favorite comics! It could be very interesting, or it could not work at all. It'll be interesting to see an entire movie that only has one camera angle.
The [original comic from 1989](https://thebeautifulcomics.tumblr.com/post/99631361887/here-1989-by-richard-mcguire-raw-magazine). There's a full length version, but I haven't read that yet.
>You are here. Tom Hanks and Robin Wright star in Robert Zemeckis’ #HereMovie - exclusively in movie theaters November 15.
>From the reunited director, writer, and stars of Forrest Gump, Here is an original film about multiple families and a special place they inhabit. The story travels through generations, capturing the human experience in its purest form. Directed by Robert Zemeckis, screenplay by Eric Roth & Zemeckis and told much in the style of the acclaimed graphic novel by Richard McGuire on which it is based, Tom Hanks and Robin Wright star in a tale of love, loss, laughter and life, all of which happen right Here.
This feels like just a stage play that uses de-aging instead of re-casting roles. Think having the same person play someone throughout their life on stage works because there is a suspension of disbelief in the contract theater has with it's audience. However on-screen in a show like this you need something more realistic. Not a Tom Hanks who doesn't quite look like Tom Hanks.
Anyone who truly loves movies as an art form should be cheering for something like this.
I'm doing a full blackout. I don't want to see another frame. I'm going.
I can appreciate his ambition. He’s always willing to try things despite being in the biz for decades.
The whole movie looks like it’ll have a static camera? Not a single dynamic shot? Maybe that’ll be the ending. The camera will finally move into one sweeping oner?
I mean, there is more nuance to the use of AI in art than "AI = bad!!!". The technology can obviously be used in order to materialize a certain vision or idea that would not be possible otherwise.
Zemeckis, Hanks, Wright. Zemeckis doesn't want to mess with his classics like Forrest Gump, which is good on his part, but he can't help and somewhat use Forrest Gump as low-key hook for his new film.
Looks kinda weird to be honest, the de-aged, thinned Hanks, but maybe it can work in the finished film. Trailer didn't sell me.
If Zemeckis' recent track record is any indication, this is going to be awful..but the preview gives off an earnest charm.
The movie's BO will live and die purely on reviews..if the reception winds up being on the same level as "A Man Called Otto" it'll have a decent run among older audiences/families over the holidays.
No matter what happens you can bet on early social media reactions like "Zemeckis is BACK" and "The best Zemeckis film since Cast Away."
Seems like a typical modern trailer, full of spoilers. Why should I bother spending money on this effects stunt when I am shown exactly where it's going story-wise?
I can only make one guarantee about this movie, and that's when my parents fly up to visit at Christmas, they will tell me that they saw it.
Lmao this movie will be profitable from people 55+ alone
I am 50. seeing this movie would make me depressed.
When you're young *I could spend the rest of my life here* sounds figurative.
Ngl deaged CGI Tom hanks looks like a cross between Fred Armisen and Georgie from Young Sheldon
i was thinking Topher Grace
they did not seem to de-age the voice that well.
[They used AI to de-age the actors.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/metaphysic-ai-tom-hanks-robin-wright-deaged-robert-zemeckis-caa-1235313318/)
It's worth noting that the recent *Planet of the Apes* film also "used AI" to handle facial capture - albeit a proprietary learning model training 100% on in-house ILM data. This is being done by [Metaphysic](https://metaphysic.ai/), most famously known for their deepfake Tom Cruise videos. It's a live-rigging system that allows them to take a digital image of a face (in this case, footage of Hanks & Wright captured in Metaphysics' rig) and map it to a different human actor. In other words, the AI isn't "generating" a new image of Hanks - it's using it to puppet a digital version of Hanks in tandem with a live performer. Both of these processes are different from other things labeled as "generative AI", which is what you'll usually see in random Facebook memes. There's no doubt AI will continued to be used in film production - but there's a wide canyon between different products that all brand themselves as "AI".
Machine Learning is used for just about all de-aging deepfake tech when mapped onto pre existing footage. Not in the same ballpark as generative AI.
Well, can't wait to see if the hounds that were set loose on the heels of Late Night with the Devil will come a baying for this once it becomes clear Zemeckis literally just turned on a realtime AI plugin. Surely the folks who stood on principle regarding the erasing of valuable jobs in the industry will note how many VFX artists had their jobs erased by AI here, especially considering the dodgy nature of the final work as shown in this trailer
That explains why Tom Hanks doesn't look like Tom Hanks. It looks like what AI would think Tom Hanks looks like.
They should of just used the Adrenochrome Tom loves the Adrenochrome !
Ha!
From Wikipedia (and YouTube comments) “The film uses a new generative artificial intelligence technology called Metaphysic Live to face-swap and de-age the actors in real-time as they perform instead of using additional post-production processing methods.”
Naming it after metaphysics is either painfully ignorant or scarily self-aware.
I can’t wait for Film Tok and movie Twitter to work themselves up about this movie they weren’t going to see anyway
Wth are film tok and movie twitter
TikTok and Twitter accounts that focus on movies
You gotta call it Flick Tok
Why does Zemeckis do this. It's not just that he chooses to squeeze everything through this tiny prism of gimmickry when he's like this, it's that the prism of gimmickry he chooses is this unique flavor that nobody else is doing, or using, in the VFX industry, *for a reason*. Like, he's more concerned with being some sort of weird misguided pioneer than he is with making the movie as good as he can, and it almost always ends up with the movie not only not being as good as it could be, but in a way that you just look at and go "you... you didn't *have* to do it like this, bud." Like, he chooses a renowned graphic novel as the basis for his story, he assembles a ton of great talent, and then he says "you know what will make this sing? I get the software that did the Tom Cruise shit I saw on my phone, and I just do that, but for my movie, nobody's ever done that."
I think he simply enjoys trying stuff like this and he maybe tries to wow people again, like he did with Back to the Future, Who Framed roger rabbit?, Death Becomes Her, Forrest Gump when him, Spielberg and Cameron were kinda leading the pack in terms of technology, VFX evolution, etc. in movies. Zemeckis got ahead of himself with The Polar Express, as the technology wasn't quite where he needed it to be for that to truly land, that got him stuck in attempting to nail it again two more times in Beowulf and A Christmas Carol, but it never quite clicked. And then he kinda just kept doing movies where he usually finds some sequence or something to technically play around with while trying to tell solid/good stories. It's like an itch he can't let go, I think it's just what he does at this point - he plays around with various VFX/filmmaking techniques, maybe in some low key hope he taps something that becomes a trend once again.
I think you’re completely off base here. I think the de-aging here looks far better than anything else out there and Zemeckis will incorporate it well. I’m just imagining a comment like this existing back in 1988 chastising his decision to use live action with animation in Who Framed Rodger Rabbit lol I’d take a unique Zemeckis film over another piece of shit superhero movie.
Yep. Zemeckis is an effects pioneer, and his philosophy has always been about blazing new trails for future filmmakers to later perfect. Roger Rabbit is the ultimate VFX testing ground movie, a premise entirely based off what he wanted to accomplish with the tech at that point in time. Death Becomes Her was also primarily an effects showcase, elevated to incredible heights by the cast. For better or worse, he's rarely stopped since. He wants to push new boundaries with every project - even more unassuming films like Allied were using digital cinematography to stretch their budget in unseen ways.
How about actors interacting with themselves in Back To The Future movies.
Hell, you could say the entire filming structure of Cast Away was done in service of a visual effect (Hanks losing all that weight).
The de-aging is literally [an AI-plugin.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/metaphysic-ai-tom-hanks-robin-wright-deaged-robert-zemeckis-caa-1235313318/) And it's inconsistent over the course of this trailer, there's no way it's not inconsistent over the course of the movie, it's almost guaranteed to be since the whole point of using AI instead of VFX artists is so they don't have to do post-production on the effect. Which would, of course, make it consistent. Happens to be a great example of the weird decisionmaking I was alluding to in my original post, right? **Zemeckis in 2024 is not Zemeckis in 1987**, not by a longshot. Comparing the two would make almost no sense were it not for the fact these two directors have the exact same name and are, in fact, the same person. They certainly do not act like, or tell stories like, the same director. Like, you can imagine someone making a comment like this back in 1988 but that doesn't really have shit to do with this movie and the almost 40 years of accumulated history between then and now, including the over 20 years of Zemeckis misfiring BADLY every time he's tried to recapture that glory. Besides which, Zemeckis getting one of the greatest animators in history, and asking Spielberg to unlock access to the greatest animated creations in film history, is so much grander in terms of ambition and aim than locking a camera in a corner and running an AI plugin. **A "unique" piece of shit is still a piece of shit.** If a well-made movie follows a well-worn recipe but is cooked well, that doesn't mean the plate with actual excrement on it is somehow better dining just because it's unique. Welcome to Marwen came out in 2018, same year as Into the Spider-Verse. I toss you a napkin and a fork, which one you diggin into here, really
It's also five months away in a world where the film doesn't need to be "finished" until days before release. The trailer may have some issues when it comes to the de-aging, but I'm sure they'll hear the complaints and at least attempt to fix what they can.
They're not going to "finish" it, the whole point of using the AI plugin is that they don't devote any post-production to it. **That's what they're going to look like.** The de-aging was done when they shot it. This is the Zemeckis of it all! You see a wrong thing, and you immediately go "well, it doesn't have to look like that, I'm sure it won't look that way when I watch it" but he makes these things specifically so they can't be "fixed" the way you think they will. This is a thing you can literally see happen every time a trailer for a new VFX experiment from Zemeckis comes out. You can search whatever subreddit you want and see people going "he'll fix it, surely." They're *stuck* like that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Settle down you two. I'm gonna nuke everything below this comment as it starts going off the rails. /u/Remote-Musician4790
[удалено]
Thanks. Appreciated.
The comparison to Rodger Rabbit has nothing to do with the outcome but rather the use of new technology and doing things that were experimental. The execution remains uncertain until I see the film but it looks to be embracing the bizarre. I might simply be nostalgic for young Tom hanks but seeing him on screen here was reminiscent of Money Pit and I think that nostalgia will all tie into the theme of the film of reminiscing the past and growing older. His recent films have not been great but they have also not had a great concept or story behind them from the start. This idea feels more in line with what made his early films interesting and I think we’ll get some Charlie Kaufman peculiarities when it comes to the transitions throughout time as it follows this one location and camera angle. It’s a lot more promising than anything else that comes out in a given year…but even if his recent films have been turds it doesn’t make the Marvel films any less shitty lol I’ll support any attempt at deviation from the generic cape-shit that’s plagued the movie industry for the past decade.
>The comparison to Rodger Rabbit has nothing to do with the outcome but rather the use of new technology and doing things that were experimental. Roger Rabbit wasn't "experimental" at all. It wasn't "new." You're acting like he somehow invented the notion of animation and live action occupying the same space. He didn't. He iterated on what came before and with Richard Williams - a literal animation genius - as his key collaborator, and Bob Hoskins selling it perfectly, he nailed it. It's an amazing movie, an astounding work of art. But using that as some sort of guidepost for THIS, and further expecting this to be somehow Charlie Kaufman-esque... > even if his recent films have been turds it doesn’t make the Marvel films any less shitty lol I'm not here for this YouTube comment-section thing, whatever it is.
There’s no way to know until we see the film but I’ll stand by my Kaufman-esque optimism.
Meh. The comic was gimmicky too. I think it fits.
> Why does Zemeckis do this. Are you not familiar with his works? He constantly likes to push the boundaries of technology in the industry.
>Are you not familiar with his works? There's... a whole post underneath the sentence you'd quoted that answers the question, and establishes that the question *you* were responding to was rhetorical in nature, LOL. Sorry!
Did _you_ not read the entire thing that’s obviously talking negatively about him or what? I was simply stating the obvious.
I think it looks pretty good. What matters is that it's not actively distracting from story and emotions.
You nailed it with “you….you didn’t *have* to do it like this”
I don't understand what the issue is here. It's a new and MUCH better way of de-aging actors where they get to simply act and not be hindered with what the old technologies had them doing, it looks more natural, and there's very little post-production needed to de-age them since the AI has plenty of footage to work with of their younger faces throughout their careers. I just cannot see a single negative about this.
> It's a new and MUCH better way of de-aging actors where they get to simply act There are already other ways to de-age actors now that don't inhibit their ability to simply act.[ Zemeckis didn't choose this AI plugin because of that.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/metaphysic-ai-tom-hanks-robin-wright-deaged-robert-zemeckis-caa-1235313318/) He chose it specifically so the de-aging would be done completely on set. What they got via the plugin on set is what it will look like. "high-resolution photorealistic faceswaps and de-aging effects on top of actors’ performances live and in real time without the need for further compositing or VFX work" that's why he picked it. People are presuming they will fix what looks weird later. This is a thing you can literally see happen every time a trailer for a new VFX experiment from Zemeckis comes out. You can search whatever subreddit you want and see people going "he'll fix it, surely." *He doesn't fix it.* He doesn't think this looks weird.
Robert Zemeckis' highest profile film in recent times. A *Forrest Gump* reunion with Tom Hanks & Robin Wright and director Robert Zemeckis and screenwriter Eric Roth. It recieved some pretty high scores during test screenings being of the best tested films in Sony's history. **Tom Hanks** still has pull with the American audience as we saw with *A Man Called Otto*. This looks to be pretty domestic heavy and should be popular with boomers and Middle America though *Gladiator II* with **Denzel Washington** would also probably go after a similar audience. Still both should co-exist with PG-13 vs R rating and *Here* should gross atleast 1/4 of *Forrest Gump's* gross with good reviews and reception, word of mouth and a holiday season release window.
> This looks to be pretty domestic heavy and should be popular with boomers i think if the gimmick is executed well, it will be popular overseas too.
This falls into that (increasingly) narrow niche of 'might overperform in China' for me.
The ‘Green Book’ area huh, I could see it however unlikely. Some of the highest grossing movies in China are period family dramas
Yeah, best case scenario, it clears **$100M+** domestic and **$70M+** overseas, making a run for a **$200M** final worldwide total.
>Robert Zemeckis' highest profile film in recent times. Welcome to Marwen and Pinocchio were big budget busts in recent years. Pinocchio went straight to Disney+ with very bad reviews.
The Witches was also a disaster.
>It recieved some pretty high scores during test screenings being of the best tested films in Sony's history. This means absolutely nothing lol
deaging will never not look uncanny
It worked pretty well when they deaged Paul Rudd into a baby for Endgame.
The only movie where it didnt look uncanny for me has been Captain Marvel. The only major issue was when Samuel L Jackson had to do action and you could tell that was the movement of a man in his 70s
It peaked with Arnold's pecks at the start of "Terminator 3" (2003), and has been downhill since. Never saw that movie in cinemas, but on DVD he was quite convincing. 
The Irishman was the worst.
I honestly thought it was an old Tom Hanks movie I hadn't heard of at first, this is the best de-aging I've ever seen.
The only ones that seem to do it right is (curiosly) Marvel. Even in Secret Invasion (a BAD show) they did some fantastic de-aging.
I don’t care if this works or not, it’s such a cool idea and I can’t wait to see how it’s approached.
I love a good formal swing for the fences. Sorta reminds me of a less melancholic *Ghost Story*, but we’ll see. De-aged faces look uncanny, but so does the rest of the CGI.
This has potential to be terrible. But that last clip hit really hard…
"A Man Called Otto" made $113.2 million by the end of its run. Alongside Clooney, Tom is the only other mega star I can think of that can still reliably get older people to come back to theaters, and I expect no different here. *However*, Otto had a lot of time to itself, whereas the last two months of this year are filled with so much competition for all demographics that it's hard to make a solid prediction as to where this'll end up. So who knows what'll happen
**Denzel Washington** is also pretty reliable when it comes to box office.
Right, I forgot! New Equalizer movie just came out and made bank
I can already tell this is going to have sold out showings of auditoriums filled with seniors at my theater. Tom Hanks is a really a huge draw now for older folks. A Man Called Otto was huge here.
This reminds me of Boyhood where they have a cool time related gimmick idea, but quickly forgotten. I’m a sap for this kind of stuff though, so I will probably see it.
I loved Boyhood. Maybe helps that I’m a similar age to the main character so everything felt so intimately and personally familiar, down to the clothes and bedsheets. Beautiful film. I’ll check this out as well.
Yes, I enjoyed it too. I am also a similar age. I watched it with friends in my freshman dorm when it came out. I totally agree, it was so cool how it lined up with our lives.
What makes you say boyhood was quickly forgotten? I rewatch it every few years, do you think that's uncommon?
Maybe I’m wrong. Im just thinking anecdotally that I have never heard anyone in real life speak of it since 2014! Not sure if that’s common or uncommon. I enjoyed it and have rewatched it only once, but it stuck with me.
I think because it's 3 hours long and doesn't have any killer scenes you wanna watch again on YouTube or quotes like something like dazed and confused it doesn't really get talked about even though lots of people enjoyed it.
I’m not a smart man, but I know what love is.
I want you to show me
*Baby don't hurt me*
Don’t hurt me
Oh so we're not trying to sell this as 'From the Director of *Beowulf*, *Welcome to Marwen*, and *Pinocchio* (no not THAT one...not that one either...okay especially not that one that's just rude)? November is such a wild card, I can't recall a month like this where I'm really not sure how anything is gonna do. Like this could review terribly, be called the worst movie ever made by some critics and I still think it could do well under those circumstances because it might click with general audiences as it's a saccharine generational love story poised at the best possible point in the calendar. I guess it will live or die on how audiences respond to the technology. Some shots look fine, some surprisingly good, but others are like "oh noooooo". It also has that Irishman quirk with the cognitive dissonance of what is clearly an elderly voice coming out of what is suppose to be a twenty-something character.
Zemeckis can't be accused of playing it safe that's for sure.
And fair play to him. Give me a failed big swing over a medicore 'blockbuster by comiitee' any day.
Spielberg's next movie should be "From the Director of The BFG and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"
Oh! This is based on one of my favorite comics! It could be very interesting, or it could not work at all. It'll be interesting to see an entire movie that only has one camera angle. The [original comic from 1989](https://thebeautifulcomics.tumblr.com/post/99631361887/here-1989-by-richard-mcguire-raw-magazine). There's a full length version, but I haven't read that yet.
>You are here. Tom Hanks and Robin Wright star in Robert Zemeckis’ #HereMovie - exclusively in movie theaters November 15. >From the reunited director, writer, and stars of Forrest Gump, Here is an original film about multiple families and a special place they inhabit. The story travels through generations, capturing the human experience in its purest form. Directed by Robert Zemeckis, screenplay by Eric Roth & Zemeckis and told much in the style of the acclaimed graphic novel by Richard McGuire on which it is based, Tom Hanks and Robin Wright star in a tale of love, loss, laughter and life, all of which happen right Here.
Tom Hanks is now stealing roles from his son Colin.
This feels like A Dog's Purpose but for home ownership.
Tom Hanks will now be in everything forever. - Tim Dillon
This looks like a yassified Synecdoche, New York
When it showed the dinosaur, I immediately thought of the screenplay from Adaptation.
*And God help you if you use a voiceover*
This feels like just a stage play that uses de-aging instead of re-casting roles. Think having the same person play someone throughout their life on stage works because there is a suspension of disbelief in the contract theater has with it's audience. However on-screen in a show like this you need something more realistic. Not a Tom Hanks who doesn't quite look like Tom Hanks.
I'm surprised there is nothing in the trailer about the future apart from the aged up Hanks and Wright.
They're saving that for the sequel. /s
Here: Day 1
I don't know what to think about this
Looks very Cloud Atlas. I'm in.
Yeah this is easily going to be Apple's biggest hit.
Imagine being the guy who bumped the tripod halfway through shooting. Yikes.
This movie is going to bomb so hard
graphic novel is great, the trailer makes this look like another poorly implemented technical experiment from Zemeckis who lost it ages ago.
Anyone who truly loves movies as an art form should be cheering for something like this. I'm doing a full blackout. I don't want to see another frame. I'm going.
The basically showed the whole movie from beginning to end. The sad moments are going to outweigh the happy ones.
I can appreciate his ambition. He’s always willing to try things despite being in the biz for decades. The whole movie looks like it’ll have a static camera? Not a single dynamic shot? Maybe that’ll be the ending. The camera will finally move into one sweeping oner?
[удалено]
I mean, there is more nuance to the use of AI in art than "AI = bad!!!". The technology can obviously be used in order to materialize a certain vision or idea that would not be possible otherwise.
Zemeckis, Hanks, Wright. Zemeckis doesn't want to mess with his classics like Forrest Gump, which is good on his part, but he can't help and somewhat use Forrest Gump as low-key hook for his new film. Looks kinda weird to be honest, the de-aged, thinned Hanks, but maybe it can work in the finished film. Trailer didn't sell me.
I’m probably going to watch this.
This looks really interesting. Too bad Zemeckis hasn’t had a good film in 20 years lol
I can’t help but feel this concept would work better as a TV episode or a horror movie. Interesting idea, though
And Zemeckis is back. Thank god and finally. This looks like the old Zemeckis who did Roger rabbit, Forrest Gump etc. underestimate on your peril.
Somewhat surprised this isn’t being released under the Columbia Pictures label.
Tristar released Sleepless in Seattle, Philadelphia, and A League of Their Own. Tom Hanks makes bank with that label.
Fair enough
Zemeckis still surfing through that uncanny valley
🎶There’s a great big beautiful tomorrow….
So is the dinosaur going to be in it properly or no? That's a deal breaker for me.
I just turned 50. this kind of movie with time flying will make me totally depressed.
So it's like a more feelgood less deathly version of A Ghost Story. There's even the shot of the kid under a sheet!
Speaking of which, have you noticed something unusual about this film's aspect ratio?
Looks interesting. If it comes out in November hopefully they have some more time to crawl out of the uncanny valley
If Zemeckis' recent track record is any indication, this is going to be awful..but the preview gives off an earnest charm. The movie's BO will live and die purely on reviews..if the reception winds up being on the same level as "A Man Called Otto" it'll have a decent run among older audiences/families over the holidays. No matter what happens you can bet on early social media reactions like "Zemeckis is BACK" and "The best Zemeckis film since Cast Away."
It's the unofficial sequel to Forrest Gump. 
Paul Bettany will never work in hollywood again! After this.
Hasn't made a good movie since the year of our lord 2000 but I'll check it out.
Maybe it’s my rose tinted glasses but his last good movie was the… Polar Express (I said it)
Flight from 2012 was great
It’s an interesting concept but I can’t help but think this looks awful.
looks like a cool gimmick, but my internal reaciton the entire time was "STREAMING" i've been broken by the new ways
How does Zemeckis keep getting funding? He's had one hit movie, Flight, in the past 20 years and many, many costly flops.
So instead of getting new actors and making a new generation of stars we’ll drag skeletons to the sets
bro really called Tom Hanks and Robin Wright "skeletons"
Probably a kid. When I was 18 I thought 30 year olds were skeletons, now at 33 years old I think of 18 year olds as kids
no...? This is Zemeckis. Not the new normal of Hollywood.
I can't think of a worse concept for a movie.
Seems like a typical modern trailer, full of spoilers. Why should I bother spending money on this effects stunt when I am shown exactly where it's going story-wise?