Would you watch AI actors?

[The Cool Thatguy]

For the sake of this debate, lets presume that somehow, magically, the studios and actors come to an agreement on the use of AI that satisfies evertone. The actors and/or their estates are all paid, and their likeness can appear anywhere as agreed upon, whatever.

In theory, this could open up a lock of potential, good and bad. All the MCU characters could have their own TV shows (where that falls on good or bad is up to you). Actors who can no longer act can show up (like say, Bruce Willis). And more things I can't think of.

Personally, minus maybe some extenuating circumstances, I don't think I could. Uncanny valley in spirit is still uncanny valley.

You?

[phonogram12]

As long as studios simply don't use this as a way not to pay their actors and the actors get paid what they deserve every time their likeness appears, I'd be okay with it. But let's face it, that's exactly why they want to use this. They want not to pay their actors to deepen their own pockets. And I just won't be a part of that. The fat cats are already fat enough. In fact, they're morbidly obese at this point.

[Alan2099]

The problem with AI actors is that they leave out the human aspect. People can surprise you and behave in unexpected ways.

We've all seen movies where they cast against type and it worked wonderfully. Heck, Leslie Nielson made the back half of his career on that, and of course, who would have expected Micheal Keaton to be the best Batman we've ever had?

On the flipside of that, you run into the issue where actors aren't as good in roles as you expect.

Then there's the matter of actors having wild and crazy ideas that make everything better, or add libbing, or just unexpected things happening on the set ("Hey, I'm walking here!") There's no rough edges and that's often what gives a movie it's charm and personality. This makes the whole thing soulless.

Now I'm not against a brief appearance as a tribute. I had no problem when Star Wars brought back Grand Moff Tarkin and Leia and I loved what they did with Harold Ramis in Ghostbusters Afterlife, but I feel there's a huge difference between "A Special appearance by Bela Lugosi (done with AI)" and making an entirely new Bela Lugosi Dracula movie.

[HollowSage]

I don’t see how it would be any different than watching animation which is technically what it would be. It’s just photorealistic animation and if the actors are paid then I have no problem with it.

[j9ac9k]

I don’t see how it would be any different than watching animation which is technically what it would be. It’s just photorealistic animation and if the actors are paid then I have no problem with it.

With animation, they animate off a voice-actor's performance. Wouldn't the AI be doing the acting based on data of the actors' previous work? (I imagine that's how we're positing the technology for the sake of this discussion)

[HollowSage]

With animation, they animate off a voice-actor's performance. Wouldn't the AI be doing the acting based on data of the actors' previous work? (I imagine that's how we're positing the technology for the sake of this discussion)

I’m not sure I see the distinction. Self-driving cars learn how to drive from humans. They are still driving. To me it’s still animation even if an AI is doing the animating.

[choptop]

Not until they look better.

[j9ac9k]

I’m not sure I see the distinction. Self-driving cars learn how to drive from humans. They are still driving. To me it’s still animation even if an AI is doing the animating.

I'm talking about human voice-actors doing the performance... the acting, which informs the animation vs. AI acting.

[HollowSage]

I'm talking about human voice-actors doing the performance... the acting, which informs the animation vs. AI acting.

Ok. I just don’t see a difference between AI acting and AI animation. The AI is doing it all so it’s all the same to me.

[Geraldofrivia]

Obviously. It really opens up a lot of possibilities

[thwhtGuardian]

As long as studios simply don't use this as a way not to pay their actors and the actors get paid what they deserve every time their likeness appears, I'd be okay with it. But let's face it, that's exactly why they want to use this. They want not to pay their actors to deepen their own pockets. And I just won't be a part of that. The fat cats are already fat enough. In fact, they're morbidly obese at this point.

Yeah, this is the crux. If the actors or their estates allow it and get properly paid then I guess it's okay.

Would it be interesting to watch though? That's a different question, one that Alan describes well above. So much of the "magic" of cinema is accidental, and I don't know if you'd get that with AI generated animation.

[Tofali]

Would you watch AI actors?

Maybe. I'll have to get over my disgust first but then again what would help is if they made the AI actors beautiful (I know I'm shallow Idc). Presently Hollywood is full of ugly and unappealing actors that would never tempt me to go to the theatre, unless it is from a director I'm a fan of or a comic book movie.

[thwhtGuardian]

Would you watch AI actors?

Maybe. I'll have to get over my disgust first but then again what would help is if they made the AI actors beautiful (I know I'm shallow Idc). Presently Hollywood is full of ugly and unappealing actors that would never tempt me to go to the theatre, unless it is from a director I'm a fan of or a comic book movie.

That's certainly one take...

[Jim Kelly]

You can call me Al.

It's not like so-called artificial intelligence suddenly landed on the planet from outer space and we don't know what to do with it. It's been developing for decades and still has a way to go before it becomes true artificial intelligence.

Back when I was doing computer science in high school, all these things (as suggested by 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY) seemed to be improbable in our lifetime. To get a computer to talk in other than prescripted language was too hard, given the complexities of language. To have a computer understand language, beyond command codes, was even more difficult. To create actual intelligence was an unproven theory--since what is intelligence? If as humans we still don't understand what causes our intelligence (or are we really intelligent or just behaving according to chemical reactions), then how can we begin to make a computer truly intelligent?

Maybe it's all just semantics. "Artificial Intelligence" sounds sexy to some people--like the creator of X, that fabulous replacement for Twitter--while to others it sounds horrifying. So it's become a buzz word and that's the reason it's gained this relevancy now rather than a few years ago. But we've been using computing with greater and greater sophistication over many decades. All those photo-realistic Disney animations require a lot of computing power, where the animation is being done by non-human means. But there's always some human who looks at the result and tweaks the program to create a better rendering.

However, an autonomous free-thinking entity, like in HER, is still the stuff of BLACK MIRROR episodes and not an actual reality.

[Tofali]

That's certainly one take...

lmao!