• monotremata@lemmy.caEnglish
    5·
    7 days ago

    Oy. Soon we’re gonna have a separate word for films that starred a particular actor when they were actually alive, as distinguished from the rest of the films starring them.

    I should rewatch The Congress.

  • Anivia@feddit.org
    3·
    6 days ago

    I mean, this isn’t really a new thing, they did the same with Paul Walker for Fast and Furious

  • hOrni@lemmy.world
    183·
    8 days ago

    They’ve finally done it. Even if You’re dead, you still have to fucking go to work.

  • Maki
    89·
    8 days ago

    So they’re just making money over a dead guy’s likeness. Business as usual then.

  • jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    57·
    8 days ago

    This is so weird to me. Are we really at a point where we need recreate old, dead actors instead of giving new actors a shot?

    Like could you imagine if we had this technology a hundred years ago and just decided that Charlie Chaplin was the best, so let’s just clone his likeness and put him in everything? You’d never have a John Wayne, a Robert DeNiro, a Harrison Ford, or a Tom Hanks. Just a recreation of Charlie Chaplin in every major movie - because it’s cheaper and less risky to recreate someone old with AI than it is to take a chance on someone new.

    This timeline is dumb as hell.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      2·
      6 days ago

      Issue is, movie execs see even CinemaSins style critique as valid, so they try their best to avoid “the protagonist looks different from what he looked like in the previous episode ding”. They even tanked SW IX to try to win over chuds, only to alienate everyone.

    • GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world
      10·
      7 days ago

      It’s just cheaper and people are not yet accepting AI actors, so bringing back a known actor is step 1.

      Studios would LOVE to replace all the actors and writers with cheap AI slop.

      I mean they already tried and faced massive backlash. So they’re going about it more carefully now.

    • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
      6·
      8 days ago

      In fairness to the studio, he had accepted the role before he became ill and was unable to actually film for the role. They also had the permission of his family, and I believe the actor himself.

  • dan1101@lemmy.worldEnglish
    41·
    8 days ago

    I would say that if no one paid to see the movie maybe studios would quit doing this, but there are usually a lot of people who don’t know or don’t care about any given shitty thing, so things get slowly worse.

  • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
    24·
    8 days ago

    Usually i wonder “Oh, xyz is still alive?”, feels werid to wonder “Oh, xyz is dead? When did that happen?”

    Is this a getting-old thing? :(

    • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      7·
      8 days ago

      Dude had a lot of health problems. Top Gun was his last hurrah, and it was difficult for him. It’s why his screen time was so short, and why they ended up honoring him with a funeral scene. If I remember correctly, he died while the film was being made, so they added that scene last minute.

      • kaidenshi@lemmy.world
        2·
        7 days ago

        Top Gun was his last hurrah

        For a minute I thought you meant the original Top Gun, and I was thinking “well Batman Forever kinda sucked, yeah, but you’ve obviously never seen Tombstone” then I realized you meant the “Maverick” movie. I never watched it and didn’t even know he was in it.

        • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          2·
          7 days ago

          realized you meant the “Maverick” movie. I never watched it and didn’t even know he was in it.

          He was for a brief moment.

    • Monument@piefed.worldEnglish
      10·
      8 days ago

      It looks like someone tried to make Tom Cruise look like Val Kilmer.

      Maybe if we see an era of AI reducing people’s individuality and throwing them all into an uncanny valley of blended-together appearances, we’ll wind up with a resurgence of interest in actors with atypical features.

  • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
    7·
    7 days ago

    If they’re going to use AI for actors, how about we start with replacing child actors? Between Hollywood’s shitty treatment of children, the effects that fame has on developmental growth, and the pure cost of hiring children (who have shorter work hours and thus tend to increase the time required to film/produce), it would make a lot more sense to replace kids on screen with a bot than attempting to raise adult actors from the dead.

    I’m no fan of AI, but considering how much child abuse happens behind the scenes, using it to reduce the need for child actors is one application I’d feel at least somewhat okay with. But this? It just feels disrespectful to the dead actor. Holograms of dead people was bad enough, now we need to recreate entire films with them?

    • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
      3·
      7 days ago

      Half the point of Hollywood is abuse. Literally that’s the reason investment ever went into the idea. No one just provides bread and circuses, and just one justification is no where near good enough to excuse the massive costs.