Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies AI

How AI Brought Back Val Kilmer's Voice For 'Top Gun: Maverick' (parade.com) 28

"62-year-old Val Kilmer was just 26 when he played Iceman in the 1986 movie Top Gun," remembers long-time Slashdot reader destinyland.

But in 2015 Kilmer lost his voice to throat cancer, remembers Parade: In his 2020 memoir I'm Your Huckleberry, Kilmer joked that he has less of a frog in his throat and more of a "buffalo." He said, "Speaking, once my joy and lifeblood, has become an hourly struggle."

Kilmer has teamed up with Sonantic, a U.K.-based software firm that uses artificial intelligence to copy voices for actors and production studios, to replicate his speech, using old recordings of his voice and existing footage. Kilmer elaborates on the process of finding his voice again through AI in a video posted to YouTube in August 2021. In his new AI-enhanced voice, which does indeed emulate the speech audiences are familiar with, Kilmer says: "People around me struggle to understand me when I'm talking, but despite all that, I still feel I'm the exact same person, still the same creative soul. A soul that dreams ideas and stories constantly.

"But now I can express myself again, I can bring these dreams to you, and show you this part of myself once more. A part that was never truly gone, just hiding away."

Kilmer's health struggles, his childhood tragedies and his ambitious career were recently documented in the acclaimed 2021 feature-length doc Val, now streaming on Amazon Prime Video. Top Gun: Maverick screened at the Cannes Film Festival to rapturous reviews, with thunderous fanfare including an air show. Though reports say audiences gave the action picture (currently sitting at a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes) a five-minute standing ovation, with audible responses throughout the picture, mainly at the groundbreaking stunt work, it's also been reported an audience-favorite scene is the "overwhelming" emotional response to the reunion of Tom Cruise and Kilmer.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How AI Brought Back Val Kilmer's Voice For 'Top Gun: Maverick'

Comments Filter:
  • by Baconsmoke ( 6186954 ) on Sunday May 22, 2022 @11:40AM (#62556502)
    Some good, some really bad. Always glad to see when it is used for something good. Here's to hoping that AI like this or similar can be used in real time to help provide voices to those who can't use theirs. I realize that's a way off, but think of the possibilities.
    • Indeed; one thing that has been constant since the beginning of AI is how amazing it is to help people with disabilities. With AIs now capable of seeing (with transcription), understanding (with transcription), speaking, the possibilities are endless. And even though we don't know when that will really become a reality, self-driving cars are an amazing hope for many who struggle to keep a normal life.

      Now, of course, like any amplifying technology, it also allows some to do more harm.

      • I can see real AI translation through any language. Speak your native language and have it translated in real-time by AI into any other language as you speak. The appliances for it might look wonky, but it could really help people a lot.

  • But why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Sunday May 22, 2022 @11:55AM (#62556528)

    I don't understand the need for this particular situation when in Val his son read Kilmer's words and sounded almost exactly like him, enough like him that I had to look up what the hell was going on given how poor his health looked in the documentary.

    I guess if their intention was to develop the tech in general then sure, go for it, but this was not a situation where there wasn't any other option, particularly a far less expensive option.

    • Re:But why? (Score:5, Funny)

      by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Sunday May 22, 2022 @12:18PM (#62556576)

      That's indie film thinking, this is Hollywood, whats an extra million to get to put Kilmers name in the actual credits. A bit like how Michael Biehn ends up getting paid for Alien3 despite only a photo of him being in the movie. If the film bombs for some reasn they can always say "Hey boss, we did everything right, we even got Kilmers real voice!"

      In this case he sounds like he is on totally on board and he's not dead so they get to develop the tech and not have as many ethical concerns.

      • In this case he sounds like he is on totally on board and he's not dead so they get to develop the tech and not have as many ethical concerns.

        See folks, he likes it! Now put away those pesky concerns and enjoy the eternal exploitation.

      • by TWX ( 665546 )

        If Kilmer was in any condition to make a brief on-screen appearance they could have put him in the movie, still having his son do the dialogue. Could even record it in advance, have Kilmer try to match the tempo with a lip-synch, and then afterward have the son re-record in an ADR fashion. Still would have been considerably cheaaper and they could have billed him as being in the movie even if only for a short while.

      • by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Sunday May 22, 2022 @04:33PM (#62556982)

        Russia's aircraft technology hasn't advanced any since the first Top Gun came out. If a situation like what happened in the first movie happened today, nobody would see any actual dogfighting, the Russian jets would be knocked out of the sky before they were even within visual range.

        So if the movie bombs, it's because nobody wants to see the homoerotic version of The Right Stuff featuring Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer that Tom Cruise has always dreamt about making.

    • Why pay voice actors (and keep paying them residuals) when you can own the voice software forever?

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      I don't understand the need for this particular situation when in Val his son read Kilmer's words and sounded almost exactly like him, enough like him that I had to look up what the hell was going on given how poor his health looked in the documentary.

      I guess if their intention was to develop the tech in general then sure, go for it, but this was not a situation where there wasn't any other option, particularly a far less expensive option.

      Probably a few reasons.

      First, Hollywood. Val Kilmer played a huge par

  • More buzz about a 35 year old sequel we didnt need.
  • by WierdUncle ( 6807634 ) on Monday May 23, 2022 @12:01PM (#62558786)

    I can sympathise with Val Kilmer. If his experience of throat cancer is anything like mine, he had his voice box removed, which makes talking a bit difficult. I breath through a hole in my neck. The surgeons fitted a small plastic valve between my food pipe and my wind pipe. I can get a usable voice by a kind of burping, where air is forced through the valve to vibrate the the wall of the food pipe. It sometimes works. When it does work, it does not sound very nice. The sound appears to terrify cold callers, which is quite amusing.

    It is rather frustrating not being able to use the phone. I had not realised that so many services rely on that. Other than that, I was always a quiet chap, so it is not too bad. I would imagine it is a disaster for an actor.

The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!

Working...