flangoVal Kilmer set to be be resurrected with AI for new film
TheAlbatrossGhoulish
SanctusWell, 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 likelness can be starring in, is another issue.
MothraNot sure if that makes much of a difference. We know AI has problems telling how many ‘R’ s words have
Indeeed it does!
Guess you haven’t seen Steven Seagal’s performances in the past decade or so
Seagal’s not dead. He’s just fat, lazy, incompetent, and stupid.
I look forward to Space Ice shitting on the “movie” he’s supposed to release this year.
hes in RUSSIA as court jester for putin,
Essentially grave robbing memory instead of rings and jewelry. The rot grows.
teftHas anyone thought this through to its logical conclusion? If we’re constantly resurrecting old talent using AI, or whatever the tech du jour is, then won’t we stagnate culturally?
Answering for Capitalism – follow the money.
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
Then why doesn’t life feel like coasting?
The endgame for this insane push for AI just seems to be to enforce a global surveillance state, nothing else.
That’s why the push to build all the AI data centers does not match with the demand for the tool.
That’s a problem for next quarter, kiddo.
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.
No, the cost of doing this is far more than hiring an actor.
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
SeductiveTortoiseThey 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!
What?
replace the with /s and read again.
only that /s doesn’t really fit, because it’s a mix of sarcasm and hate and it’s getting harder to cope.
Okay I thought so, but the hard shift between the first and 2nd sentence made me confused who you were being sarcastic to.
I think the realization came while writing and I was too lazy to adjust. I’m tired of … all of this.
You’re fine. There just seems like a lot more people in the comments rage baiting lately, but I don’t like catching innocent people in the crossfire.
You’re a premium person 💖
it was pretty clear to me, don’t overthink it
Boomer Humor DoomergodMy 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.
Dr. WeskerHe’s probably huckleberrying in his grave right now.
So a cartoon character is copyrighted for 75 years after the author dies, but someone’s actual visual clone can just be brought back from the dead and made to do whatever?
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, but at least there’s some oversight to his image I guess.
Then they should have insisted that they mupify his corpse
Nice. I’m putting that in my will.
The Kilmer estate is signing off on it because they feel it’s an important film Val wanted to contribute to opportunity to make money out of the memory of a cherished actor.
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.
Not just likeness, Scarlett Johansson successfully sued a Fr*nch author for portraying her in a novel.
GTFO! I’mma gonna look this one up!
Thanks!
OpenAI wanted to use her voice as one of the voices for ChatGPT, she said no, they got someone else to record it where it sounded eerily similar to her in Her, she sued, and they dropped it out of ‘respect’ for her.
Why the fuck are you censoring “French”?
SeeMarkFlyGreat! ANOTHER person that makes more money DEAD than I do alive.
tomkattI’m not gonna watch it, but can I anti-watch it, so my ‘view’ counts negatively against it?
Torrent it thousands of times so the movie execs freak out about the massive theft they are suffering.
Lumidaub
switcherooHis family is okay with this??? Are they that fucking greedy???
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?
tgirlschierke…Well, it was a matter of time, I suppose.
So. Fairly shallow then?
Holy clickbait title, Batman.
This is no more a “resurrection” than drawing a picture of someone is.
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.
This is absolutely bullshit, but also half-assed cowardice. Like if you’re going to put dead people who cannot consent to the use of their image in your project, why not make Martin Luther King Jr the next T’challa in the MCU? Why not make Pope Benedict fight the mandelorian?
Or macho man randy savage.
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.