Val Kilmer set to be be resurrected with AI for new film

Well, being dead of course he's not going to be staring at much. Maybe the twinkly ether of the afterlife?

Now what his AI generated likeness can be starring in, is another issue.

Guess you haven't seen Steven Seagal's performances in the past decade or so

They take him because his face is known and loved. What reason would there be to take someone nobody knows? You can make up a new, imaginary actor and not pay anyone, not even family. What a wonderful world that'll be, without the need for pesky humans! 🫩

My headcanon is that everything after 2008 was all reboots and remakes and now revived actors, and that’s why all the Star Trek references end there.

Yo tambien. I have sadness now.

Reminds me of when some famous porn actress died and somebody set up a live cam for her that just showed dirt, bugs, and worms.

The Kilmer estate is signing off on it because they feel it's an important film Val wanted to contribute to. Doesn't make it any less gross for me, but at least there's some oversight to his image I guess.

It's the rights to a person's likeness that can be made into a legal property that heirs can control.

This is why you don't see much marketing with, say, Elvis Presley's actual face (he was an actor - marginally capable for certain, but one nonetheless) unless it will be allowed by his heirs.

Look at it from the angle that an actor's FACE is their performative trademark, in the same way a singer's distinctive voice is theirs, or a writer's words, or a musician's composition.

My recollection may be flawed, but I think he had a reputation for being difficult to work with, and that's why the roles dried up.

Culturally, scientifically, intelligently, you name it we’ve reached the peak. AI is just recycling what humans have thought and said, According to our new ai overlords we just coast from here

That's a problem for next quarter, kiddo.

Answering for Capitalism – follow the money.

No, the cost of doing this is far more than hiring an actor.

Culture isn't defined by the use or abuse of AI.

It's a tool when used creatively with full public knowledge, and a weapon when it's used to surreptitiously decieve.

As an artists tool for seamlessly putting a character into a story, is it any different than how videogames are made with an actor's face slapped onto another actor's motion captured movements?

It's not like the aforementioned film producers are trying to hide their use of it.

A global surveillance state, is the end goal. These uses of AI are merely to push that goal forward by giving use to the tool for the masses to accept more data centers

I think that only applies to companies that employ unionized workers.

Read the article. This was apparently a project that meant a lot to him and was on his dance card before the cancer..

Hs family is fully on board and if it represents a memorial for him and a subject he was passionate about, what's the beef?

Or macho man randy savage.

Celebrity Deathmatch with AI figures might be ok but i’d prefer claymation for the nostalgia.

I mean... did you read the article? He really wanted to be in the film, and his family and estate think this is the right move and what he would have wanted. It wasn't clear if they talked to him about it or not, but this isn't just a blatant lets do it thing with no consideration.

Torrent it thousands of times so the movie execs freak out about the massive theft they are suffering.

It definitely is. It's not resurrecting, obviously. But it's definitely weird and a lot more something than drawing a picture. I'm not against it or for it, but it's definitely a new idea that I'm not 100% behind. They should definitely try it and see how it feels. But even now, thinking about it, something about it feels really wrong that I just can't quite put my finger on...