Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies AI

68 Years After His Death, James Dean Is Reportedly Starring in a New Movie - Thanks to AI (bbc.com) 64

Nearly seven decades after he died, James Dean "has been cast as the star in a new, upcoming movie," reports the BBC: A digital clone of the actor — created using artificial intelligence technology similar to that used to generate deepfakes — will walk, talk and interact on screen with other actors in the film...

This is the second time Dean's digital clone has been lined up for a film. In 2019, it was announced he would be resurrected in CGI for a film called Finding Jack, but it was later cancelled. Travis Cloyd, chief executive of immersive media agency WorldwideXR (WXR), confirmed to BBC, however, that Dean will instead star in Back to Eden, a science fiction film in which "an out of this world visit to find truth leads to a journey across America with the legend James Dean". The digital cloning of Dean also represents a significant shift in what is possible. Not only will his AI avatar be able to play a flat-screen role in Back to Eden and a series of subsequent films, but also to engage with audiences in interactive platforms including augmented reality, virtual reality and gaming.

The technology goes far beyond passive digital reconstruction or deepfake technology that overlays one person's face over someone else's body. It raises the prospect of actors — or anyone else for that matter — achieving a kind of immortality that would have been otherwise impossible, with careers that go on long after their lives have ended. But it also raises some uncomfortable questions. Who owns the rights to someone's face, voice and persona after they die? What control can they have over the direction of their career after death — could an actor who made their name starring in gritty dramas suddenly be made to appear in a goofball comedy or even pornography? What if they could be used for gratuitous brand promotions in adverts...? Dean's image is one of hundreds represented by WRX and its sister licensing company CMG Worldwide — including Amelia Earhart, Bettie Page, Malcolm X and Rosa Parks...

Voice actors, in particular, have been leading the conversation and working across acting guilds to form a unified front in protecting the rights and careers of actors... Cloyd acknowledges the potential for fewer acting opportunities but offers a "glass-half-full" perspective toward employing dead actors. "At the end of the day, it creates lots of jobs," he says, referring to the other technical and film industry jobs the technology could generate. "So even though it could be jeopardising one person's role or job, at the same time, it's creating hundreds of jobs in regards to what it takes to do this at a high level."

If the dead — or rather, their digital clones — are damned to an eternity of work, who benefits financially? And do the dead have any rights? Simply put, the rules are murky and, in some regions of the world, non-existent.

In June Rolling Stone published this advice from Samuel L. Jackson. "Future actors should do what I always do when I get a contract and it has the words 'in perpetuity' and 'known and unknown' on it: I cross that shit out. It's my way of saying, 'No, I do not approve of this.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

68 Years After His Death, James Dean Is Reportedly Starring in a New Movie - Thanks to AI

Comments Filter:
  • by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Sunday August 20, 2023 @12:40PM (#63782514) Homepage
    Add "Actors" to the list of people who will be unemployed in the world we're building.
    • Most are unemployed or infrequently employed aspirants anyway.

      Actors leverage scarcity of talent, but when they are no longer required creators benefit from lower production cost and not every creator is a wealthy studio.

      The reason wealth is currently the barrier to entry is people are expensive. So was the stenographer pool of old yet none mourn their passing because the personal computer democratized access to what once required on-site specialists.

      • Most are unemployed or infrequently employed aspirants anyway.

        Actors leverage scarcity of talent, but when they are no longer required creators benefit from lower production cost and not every creator is a wealthy studio.

        The reason wealth is currently the barrier to entry is people are expensive.

        Bring on even a mild Depression to cut out all that pointless and wasteful spending all of Hollywood relies on to survive, and the people in it will gain a whole new sense of self worth that should represent something a lot more realistic.

        That said, if I were looking across a large pool of enterprises I owned, and "Hollywood" was one of them currently spending nine figures or more on the combined "A" list payroll, only to be churning out reboot after recycle after reborn prequel, I'd probably be looking at

      • The other side is that actors are part of the formula that makes or breaks success.

        Too much use of any actor just makes things boring.

        There are cases where an AI actor could make sense, like in scenes where the character that actor plays hands over their task to another and the original actor is not capable.

    • by Kisai ( 213879 )

      Nah.

      AI-built content creation is "basket with all your eggs in it" type of situation where people will simply refuse to watch content that is made by AI. Much in the same way people refuse to watch content that is CGI, or animated, or live action, or japanese anime, etc.

      There will be a niche of people of course who like the tech and might watch the content legitimately, but it's more likely that people will just hate-watch it and dunk on it a few times before they write off AI as ever being able to produce

    • You still need an actor, whose face will later be replaced by that of James Dean (or Napoleon).

    • by vlad30 ( 44644 )
      This also will solve character issues e.g. wolverine and superman who should not age requiring reboot after reboot to start again with a new actor, I'm tired of origin stories (pick a superhero) how about just going with another story Also should fix actors who get bored with a character and demand more money or make themselves toxic due to public behaviour. which then causes a reboot.
  • Pretty much all major movies are remakes, reboots, sequels and other assorted retelling of old stories
    AI will make it easier to churn out these derivative works faster and cheaper
    I hope the fad passes soon and we get some creativity and originality

    • We as a people have been around a long time; in one way or another everything is a retelling of an old idea first imagined centuries if not tens of centuries ago. The difference is that only recently have we been able to retell a story with moving images, and we are now at the point of been there and done that for almost everything imaginable.

      Sure the actors can portray things with a different flair or charisma on each iteration but it is already the same old stories over and over - maybe sometimes with
      • The problem with "everything imaginable" is that it's the stuff not imagined yet that is the most interesting.
        • Let's be honest. Like anything else, at least 80% of it is crud. Even if it's more than that, the tiny percent that isn't makes it worth sticking around to see.
      • We as a people have been around a long time; in one way or another everything is a retelling of an old idea first imagined centuries if not tens of centuries ago. The difference is that only recently have we been able to retell a story with moving images, and we are now at the point of been there and done that for almost everything imaginable.

        Sorry, but that really does not excuse the incessant problem of Hollywood being drunk on the third retelling of a recycled movie across seemingly every genre of film making. I'm not even sure how writers are getting much work these days.

        The Hollywood imagination should never reach the bottom of the well. At those A-list prices? Recycled crap is what we get? No thanks. This is why Hollywood is feeling the irrelevancy more and more these days. Hell, their job is to make shit up, and they seem to be stru

        • Especially considering there are huge gluts of unshot scripts just sitting there that'll never get shot, because the studios would rather film a remake rather than take a risk on a weird creative little film that may or may not flop in the theatres. Like, tens maybe hundreds of thousands of scripts.

          The imagination is there. The problem is the brains that have the imagination and the brains that run the studios are most definately not the same brains.

    • In this case, how many people still have nostalgia for James Dean? He died at age 24. He has been dead almost three times longer than he was alive. I am past the nominal retirement age, and he died before I was born. Only about 12% of the U.S. population was alive when he was, and the fraction of those who might remember him while he was alive is more like 7%, if they paid attention to adult movies as a child. Maybe about 1% of the population were adults when he was making movies.

      • (1) The number of people interested in $RandomMovie will always be less than those interested in "$RandomMovie plus James Dean"

        (2) You don't need to have lived contemporaneously with James Dean to be interested in James Dean.

        Biopics, which rely solely on interest in the subject, typically are based on someone who has been dead for at least a generation.

  • Have the last 3 years taught them nothing? There is no shortcut to a good movie. Gimmicks are always going to be gimmicks.
    • What is a good movie? Because you think a certain movie is good, another person might call it crap. But I do think it's ridiculous to remake a lot of movies/series when there still are so many books/short stories unfilmed.
    • Learn? This is an industry that has remade Robin Hood 18 times [wikipedia.org] -- and that was just the Theatrical release alone.

      They will keep pumping out shitty remakes for as long as people keeping buying them.

  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Sunday August 20, 2023 @12:59PM (#63782552)

    They'll have "him" do a cover of Tracy Chapman's song "Fast Car".

    (Too soon?)

  • and we don't need to pay the family any thing!

  • by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Sunday August 20, 2023 @01:24PM (#63782578)

    Newman also made clear [abajournal.com] that he didn’t want his image manipulated to create performances that never occurred, explicitly noting that his executors should prevent any “virtual performance or reanimation of any performance by me by the use of any technique, technology or medium now in existence or which may be known or created in the future anywhere in the universe.”

    That was part of Newman's will and it still stands. While it might be an exception, there is no reason current actors, or people for that matter, can't have the same thing in their will.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Does it matter? There is no particular reason why someone's likeness is important other than the acting skills they have shown in the past. If you can create an artificial talented actor then you can make them look like whatever you want, it doesn't matter. Just like any new actor coming on the scene.

      I have to admit though, there are a whole lot of actresses that missed their chance and never got naked in their early 20's. They will never look that good again so I wouldn't mind some artificial porn of that.

      • It matters because people care greatly about their legacy and also because why should some random fucks have the right to turn their corpse into a digital zombie slave for profit?

        It's pretty gruesome.

        Should it be ok for pornhub to put digital zombie Paul Newman into porn without estate approval? I think not.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Whoosh, you missed my point 100%. My point is, there is no point in using someone's likeness at all when you can make anything. That's why it doesn't matter if actors protect themselves, who cares.

          • Then you made a bad point because audiences care who is in the movie.

            Big time actors make the money they do because many paying viewers will pay for the show only or primarily because a particular actor is in the movie.

            No name actors make shit because they don't draw in a large paying audience.

            Whoosh, indeed.

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        It must matter, or we wouldn't be reading about an AI re-created James Dean. They'd just avoid any problems by cobbling up some plausible young male actor who never existed but checks the right boxes for Hollywood.

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      I doubt that clause is enforceable. It isn't like it is a law.

      • I doubt that clause is enforceable. It isn't like it is a law.

        And yet, have you seen Newman's like anywhere except for his products? Actors are unique in that their IP is their likeness and abilty to portray characters. This would be no different than using their image while they were alive without their permission.

    • I guess the question is, does anyone's likeness ever fall into the public domain? Films certainly can enter the public domain, and therefore, it seems reasonable to expect that the characters in those films would enter the public domain at the same time. While James Dean himself wouldn't fall into the public domain, the character he played in a movie could. And that's more likely what the public would expect to see a film, an amalgamation of the various characters James Dean played in the movies.
    • by kmoser ( 1469707 )
      TFA:

      But it also raises some uncomfortable questions. Who owns the rights to someone's face, voice and persona after they die?

      quonset:

      While it might be an exception, there is no reason current actors, or people for that matter, can't have the same thing in their will.

      Exactly: the question is no more "uncomfortable" when it comes to reanimating a celebrity's likeness as it was in the old days for still images of a celebrity. While it may be easier than ever to produce movies featuring dead celebrities, before the advent of AI and face-swapping you would have just used a lookalike with perhaps a bit of makeup and the right lighting. Nothing new to see here.

  • We're all done as a species. We deserve what's coming.

  • Of all professions why do creators (e.g. book writers, composers, singers, bands, and now actors) feel they can earn for eternity? What's so special about them?

    Patents expire. Inventions in physics (which is probably 10000 times more difficult than e.g. acting) and other sciences become common knowledge. Some creators use no-copyright (often "attribution only") licenses.

    • Because my face and voice are "me". You don't have to pay me but you also don't have the right to use me without paying me. Or my estate.

      No one is your digital slave to use as you see fit. Especially not for your profit.

      That's why.

  • I would watch something with an entirely AI created person if the movie was quality but I won't watch something that "digitally resurrects" someone who is dead and certainly never signed off on his use like this using technology that wasn't even conceived of during his life.

    As per Stephen King, "sometimes dead is better".

    Down with digital zombies!

    • How is he harmed in any way by his look being used like this? Since when do we need the consent of dead people to do anything? Did Abraham Lincoln sign off on his name being used to name a high school? Did Ben Franklin consent to his drawing being used on a $100 bill? Did Napoleon consent to a movie being made about his life? What kind of stupidity is it that we can't use someone's likeness long after they are dead?

      • If you want to discuss consent in a legal sense then his estate continues to own his image and voice.

        Naming a school or putting an imagine on a bill is not the same as a movie, you know that. I don't know why you went there. Napoleon was played by an actor not his real voice and image being manipulated. Still not the same.

        If your dead mother turned up in AI created donkey porn that was sent to all your friends would that be ok? She's dead, so it's ok, right? No one is harmed when your dead mom turns up

        • by socode ( 703891 )
          If you want to discuss his estate in a legal sense, it should cease to exist once the will is discharged and any property and interests are disposed of.
        • The porn example is invalid, because it is used for slander/libel which we are protected from by laws already (knowingly spreading a falsehood that causes damage to someone's reputation is slander/ libel .. even though it's indirect the effect is the same). As for the estate aspect, that is true but in this case I am sure they got permission from the estate .. unless they're planning to run the clock out. We've decided that copyright can belong to an estate for 70 years. After that it's public domain.

  • Or, sorry, action figures. But digitally, and with more realism.
  • If you make James Dean alive, then the whole reality about him changed and he will just be another uncanny valley to be gawked at. That will be a sad spectacle and will wear out very soon. I suspect this will be true for anyone you knew was dead and came back and be shown in front of you. That is another reason why Jesus Christ never stayed around or the story about him never said he was resurrected and lived among his disciples in physical form for many years, because no one can pull that off, not even
  • by ishmaelflood ( 643277 ) on Sunday August 20, 2023 @08:56PM (#63783522)

    IANAL recent ruling is you can't copyright AI images, so presumably this film will not be copyrighted. Am I wrong?

    • You need to read the ruling on that case more carefully, not just the headline. In the case where the judge rules against copyright, he did so specifically because the AI was making output without human guidance (no prompt, just a "go make stuff" button essentially). Almost all production use of AI to make any sort of media would be evaluated differently.

  • First, I have a slight curiosity to see if the final result passes the uncanny valley test or not. Could I look at it and focus on the plot, not disturbed by some fake feeling?

    Second, I have totally no interest in James Dean, when I was born he was long dead. When I saw films with him, there were a lot of people around with nostalgia for him, but to me those films were looking dated. So, James Dean or totally created from scratch new AI "actor", is the same for me.

  • Itâ(TM)s just creepy. Let the dead poor actors remain dead.

  • James Dean arguably is more famous for dying young than he is for any role in the movies, I can't see how an AI replica of him would add to a plot line.

  • This is nifty tech. But skip the technology, licensing, and AI issues for just a moment: What is the purpose of doing this?

    Is the physical look of one particular actor the thing that makes the character? Surely not: when we watch a play or a musical, we don't expect that every actor looks the same. We expect a good performance that is true to the character. I thought that part of the art form is actors and directors to interpreting the character to strike a balance between the canon performances and new

  • The film Looker [imdb.com] is becoming more and more relevant.

    Next, studios will be killing off actors so they can freely use their likeness like this

  • What part of "Rest in Peace" do these people not understand? Oh right, money, yeah.

Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly

Working...