18

It's famous that Cavill did all his shoot for Justice League (2017) in his mustache because he had another shooting going on for Mission Impossible 6 (2018) which required his mustache.

enter image description here

And then, Warner Bros. removed his mustache with CGI which terribly failed at several places.

enter image description here

Why didn't they go for simple option: Henry Cavill could simply shave his mustache for his Superman role and use a fake mustache at Mission Impossible 6 set?

Ankit Sharma
  • 10,428
  • 7
  • 57
  • 93
user931
  • 115,946
  • 150
  • 581
  • 1,075

2 Answers2

32

According to user LDN_Films on Reddit (posting anonymously, but "checked out" and vouched for as genuine by Reddit's own AMA team), the issue was that Cavill was already in pre-production for his next film and required permission from the studio to change his appearance. Paramount point-blank refused to allow him to do so.

This would strongly imply that Cavill was under contract to grow a moustache for the role and under financial penalty if he broke his contract.

Q: What was your team's reaction when you heard you had to CGI the moustache?

LDN_Films: A mix - to some people it's a cool little project to get stuck in to and another problem to solve, which is what a lot of VFX is about. Challenging. To me, as a fan, I was annoyed haha Paramount should've shaved him and stuck a fake one on for MI6. Ridiculously petty of them. We did tests on already shot footage of Superman to add a beard as well to show the MI6 team at Paramount it was loads easier, and Warner Bros offered to pay for all the beard adding shots in MI6. They said no.

The director for MI:6 claimed (in a now-deleted tweet) that it was because of all the high-octane action that a fake moustache simply wouldn't work.

In exactly one year you’ll understand: The only way to keep a fake ‘stache on Henry Cavill would be a liberal dose of staples. #MI6 07.27.18

— ChristopherMcQuarrie (@chrismcquarrie) July 25, 2017

So we're left with two options, depending on who you believe;

  • An allegation of sheer pettiness
    or
  • that there were genuine concerns that a fake 'tash would simply fly away in the middle of a multi-million dollar stunt sequence.

It's also possible that neither are true and that he'd simply already filmed some VFX pre-visualisation shots or that Paramount wanted the option of incorporating early test footage into the finished film. Having him shave and then use a fake moustache would make these difficult due to continuity issues.

Community
  • 1
Valorum
  • 689,072
  • 162
  • 4,636
  • 4,873
  • 32
    And let's be honest here. If Paramount can cost DC Films $30M simply by refusing to allow their star to shave, then that's a big win for them. – Valorum Jan 01 '18 at 19:41
  • 3
    I believe, your comment is the real answer.. :) – user931 Jan 01 '18 at 19:51
  • 1
    @Bat True, but they would never admit it so it can not be sourced! – Odin1806 Jan 01 '18 at 20:07
  • 12
    @Valorum To be clear, it was $25-$30 million for the entire reshoot process, not that much simply for removing the mustache (Movies.SE goes into more detail). – Thunderforge Jan 01 '18 at 20:22
  • @Thunderforge - Sure. And those numbers themselves are highly suspect because of Hollywood accounting practices. – Valorum Jan 01 '18 at 20:35
  • More particularly https://movies.stackexchange.com/a/82952/5652 has more detail on why he had to keep the stache - the MI6 director said "In exactly one year you’ll understand: The only way to keep a fake ‘stache on Henry Cavill would be a liberal dose of staples." which suggests (to me) its going to get pulled around or something in such a way that a fake one would come off and it needs to be real (or maybe something else but that was my first thought). May be worth checking the reference on that answer and adding a similar reference to this answer (it doesn't feel worth adding a new one). – Chris Jan 01 '18 at 22:55
  • @Chris - Worth adding in. Cheers. – Valorum Jan 01 '18 at 23:26
  • a fake 'tash would simply fly away in the middle of a multi-million dollar stunt sequence ~> Even if they couldn't find a good glue, he could grow that much mustache within no time. I get double dense mustache than that within a month. – user931 Jan 02 '18 at 00:04
  • 3
    @Bat Mustaches don't grow with the same speed on every man. Who knows, perhaps he has one of the slowest staches known to mankind. But this is straying into Biology.SE territory. – Mast Jan 02 '18 at 00:33
  • @Bat On me, that's about four months of 'stache growing. –  Jan 02 '18 at 00:52
  • @Mast Still, he could take extra dose of Testosterone to make it grow faster. – user931 Jan 02 '18 at 02:17
  • 4
    I don't think it's petty in the slightest, to be honest. The producers probably made it very clear that he must grow and keep a real moustache, and the actor agreed. It would be very unprofessional of him to even ask if he could shave it after agreeing to the terms. At this point, the reason is irrelevant, so it can't be petty. – ESR Jan 02 '18 at 05:47
  • 1
    Two additional points to include - learned mannerisms of having vs not having a mo. It would be extra work for the actor to remember to act like he has a Kaiser. Call them tweaks or twitches, but most moustashioed men will wipe their lip curtain with their hand or a napkin or whatever, immediately after eating/drinking. Those without a Fu Manchu wouldn't do the same as frequently. Plus a really decent Wedge-of-Wool takes 6~12 months to "fill in" properly. Anything less could look like a teenager's pencil-stashe and that thin look would be aggravated by the camera. – Criggie Jan 02 '18 at 08:25
0

Henry was contract obligated to not shave. Yeah! Incredible as it may seem, that's the truth.

But instead of Justice League waIting, which would have clearly have benefited the movie. They simply decided to CGI the scenes with Superman.

That's why almost every time we got a close up on Superman face, he seemed weird.

Zer0ne80
  • 11
  • 1