New Movie Trailer Shows First AI-Generated Performance By a Major Star: the Late Val Kilmer (abc.net.au) 88
"A trailer has been released for the first film to star an authorised generative AI version of a major Hollywood actor," writes The Guardian:
Val Kilmer was cast in western As Deep As the Grave before his death in April 2025. Production delays meant he never shot any scenes, but the creative team worked with UK-based company Sonantic to create an AI speaking voice based on his old recordings. His estate and daughter Mercedes collaborated with the film-makers on the visual deepfake of the actor. Kilmer, who was diagnosed with throat cancer, was also assisted by technology for his cameo in 2022's Top Gun: Maverick...
Writer-director Coerte Voorhees confirmed that Kilmer is seen for around an hour of the film's running time... Voorhees has said that the production followed Sag-Aftra [union] guidelines, and that Kilmer's estate — which provided archival material for them to use — was compensated financially.
"Kilmer's likeness can be seen portraying Father Fintan, a Catholic priest and Native American spiritualist," adds The Hollywood Reporter. But the AV Club calls it "ghoulish puppet show time."
"Having your AI Val Kilmer puppet whisper 'Don't fear the dead, and don't fear me' in a movie trailer is a bold choice..." He is accompanied (per Variety) by a whole host of disclaimers, caveats, and explanations offered by writer-director Coerte Voorhees and his associates: Kilmer deeply wanted to be in the movie, but was too sick to do so. His family endorses and supports his inclusion. He was a big fan of technology, including, presumably, its use in turning his own image into a digital avatar to then shove into movies...
The fact is, of course, that nobody would be paying a fraction of this attention to As Deep As The Grave — about early female archeologist Ann Axtell Morris — if it weren't now being used as the stage on which Voorhees was very publicly accepting the dare to go full-on ghoulish with AI tech.
"The filmmakers said they hoped they were showing Hollywood how to use the technology in a positive way..." notes Australia's ABC News. But their articles add that "Some have called the trailer 'terrifying' and 'disgusting' on social media."
Mashable writes: "Very fitting that this trailer includes a scene where a corpse is unceremoniously yanked out of the ground," read one of the top comments on As Deep as the Grave's trailer at time of writing... [O]nline commenters have labelled it disgusting and disrespectful, not only for digitally reanimating Kilmer but also for the damaging precedent As Deep as the Grave's use of AI could set for the film industry as a whole.
Writer-director Coerte Voorhees confirmed that Kilmer is seen for around an hour of the film's running time... Voorhees has said that the production followed Sag-Aftra [union] guidelines, and that Kilmer's estate — which provided archival material for them to use — was compensated financially.
"Kilmer's likeness can be seen portraying Father Fintan, a Catholic priest and Native American spiritualist," adds The Hollywood Reporter. But the AV Club calls it "ghoulish puppet show time."
"Having your AI Val Kilmer puppet whisper 'Don't fear the dead, and don't fear me' in a movie trailer is a bold choice..." He is accompanied (per Variety) by a whole host of disclaimers, caveats, and explanations offered by writer-director Coerte Voorhees and his associates: Kilmer deeply wanted to be in the movie, but was too sick to do so. His family endorses and supports his inclusion. He was a big fan of technology, including, presumably, its use in turning his own image into a digital avatar to then shove into movies...
The fact is, of course, that nobody would be paying a fraction of this attention to As Deep As The Grave — about early female archeologist Ann Axtell Morris — if it weren't now being used as the stage on which Voorhees was very publicly accepting the dare to go full-on ghoulish with AI tech.
"The filmmakers said they hoped they were showing Hollywood how to use the technology in a positive way..." notes Australia's ABC News. But their articles add that "Some have called the trailer 'terrifying' and 'disgusting' on social media."
Mashable writes: "Very fitting that this trailer includes a scene where a corpse is unceremoniously yanked out of the ground," read one of the top comments on As Deep as the Grave's trailer at time of writing... [O]nline commenters have labelled it disgusting and disrespectful, not only for digitally reanimating Kilmer but also for the damaging precedent As Deep as the Grave's use of AI could set for the film industry as a whole.
not to disrespect the late Val Kilmer but fuck AI. (Score:2)
the role should have been recast. a living human should have been able to showcase their talent instead of AI ghosts.
Re: (Score:1)
so it could be used for him as well when he is gone
Why? Is there some shortage of neckbeard commie forum warriors now?
Not our Democratic Party anymore (Score:2)
our democratic party
I don't think it is our Democratic Party anymore. Neither our Progressivism. Neither some of our Labor Unions. These have recently transformed into quite different things, people are very slowly recognizing this. Its hard to accept that the part of FDR and JFK is no more, its not even the party of Clinton or Obama anymore.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Do you remember when creimer was throwing rsilvergun under the bus?
No. And your obsession is unhealthy.
There are also rumors creimer created an AI to be able to continue throwing rsilvergun under the bus from his grave.
See previous comment.
Re: (Score:2)
i mean if Val Kilmer were irreplaceable for the role it could make sense, but as far as i can tell this is a one off role which he didn't even film any scenes for.... like if you were mid franchise and you needed to finish off a film when you lead dies, AI might make sense, but this is not that situation. bankable name replaced by AI news at 11.
Re:not to disrespect the late Val Kilmer but fuck (Score:4)
Many machines have replaced or greatly reduced the need for human labor. What makes acting deserving of special protection from automation?
Re:not to disrespect the late Val Kilmer but fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Many machines have replaced or greatly reduced the need for human labor. What makes acting deserving of special protection from automation?
Acting is not a one-way street like machines are. For example, a combine does one thing really well: cut down and process a crop. It does not make marinara sauce, does not swim in the ocean, does not make hamburgers, and a whole host of other things.
Whereas an actor/actress isn't just repeating lines. They are emoting so you and I believe they are who they are portraying. They are moving within the scene. They may jump, be suspended from wires, dive into water, or even look as if they are cooking for a role. They have a wide range of things they need to do as an actor/actress. And unlike a combine, they may portray a variety of characters. In the case of Kilmer, he's portray a jet pilot, a gunshooter, a criminal, a PhD candidate working on a laser, and a singer, to name a few. Each of those are distinct from one another and require the person to change how they act.
* It was nearly 8 at night and I hadn't eaten supper yet so my post does lean heavily on food refrences.
Re: (Score:2)
If AI can do the job of an actor, why would acting deserve special protection from automation?
Re:not to disrespect the late Val Kilmer but fuck (Score:4, Interesting)
why would acting deserve special protection from automation?
I'll give it a shot.
There are some tasks that people enjoy doing. Replacing a career path that most participants want to do (or at least claim to want to do) obsoletes the human race.
It's one thing to automate drudge work that almost nobody wants to do. Clean toilets? Make a robot. It's also understandable to replace humans in jobs where computers/robots can do it better and it matters. Soon robot surgeons will be the clear best choice. Additionally it makes sense to keep some neutral jobs available for people who enjoy doing manual tasks like farming. Automate most of food-growing but leave it a viable career path for people who legitimately take pleasure in growing things.
But the arts? Why - aside from maximizing bullshit profits for faceless corporations - would we want to deprive the throngs of aspiring artists? Sure, sure, it someone's crap at it they should find a different job. But why are we even contemplating AI music when there's a nearly limitless supply of people who are quite talented but there isn't a slot for them in the money machine?
Without things people enjoy doing, there's no point in being people. We might as well just turn on a looping game of SimCity and euthanize our species. Having a robot eat your breakfast for you is unfulfilling and so is this.
Disclosure: I am in no way an artist. I don't have skin in this game and never could. But I'm enough of a left-brained individual that I can recognize the logic in preserving right-brain purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand all that, but it still doesn't say why acting deserves special treatment.
Coders enjoy coding. AI has taken a chunk out of that, and people treat it as beneficial. It's taken a lot of translators out of the picture. They enjoy what they do. It's taken a slice out of countless jobs that people enjoy doing, and there's been a bit of a murmur about job losses.
Then we get to acting, with a famous actor being deep faked into a movie with the consent of his estate, and everyone is up in arms b
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand all that, but it still doesn't say why acting deserves special treatment.
I'm not sure how you interpreted what I wrote, but I thought it was pretty clear. Acting - as part of "the arts" - is more play than work for the people who do it. That merits not automating it because without enjoyable things to do, we become nothing but consumption machines.
Coders enjoy coding.
Citation required.
Okay, no, I'm just kidding. I think it's safe to say some coders enjoy it, but for most it's probably just "work".
AI has taken a chunk out of that, and people treat it as beneficial. It's taken a lot of translators out of the picture. They enjoy what they do.
To a certain degree, coding is - theoretically - a job that AI will eventually do more reliably th
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the movie studio executives, board of directors, or shareholders care? To them, it's a business to maximize profit. You can do that if using AI costs less than paying actors.
Re: (Score:2)
Replacing a career path that most participants want to do (or at least claim to want to do) obsoletes the human race.
(...)
It's also understandable to replace humans in jobs where computers/robots can do it better and it matters. Soon robot surgeons will be the clear best choice.
But the arts? Why - aside from maximizing bullshit profits for faceless corporations - would we want to deprive the throngs of aspiring artists? Sure, sure, it someone's crap at it they should find a different job. But why are we even contemplating AI music when there's a nearly limitless supply of people who are quite talented but there isn't a slot for them in the money machine
I think you're contradicting yourself, and also being unintentionally insulting towards artists. You say surgeons should be replaced by AI because the work the surgeon does matter, but artists shouldn't - meaning that the artists' work doesn't really matter. You say this is how humanity can avoid obsolescence. Do you really think humanity will avoid obsolescence by ceding things that matter to AI and limiting itself to the trivial pursuits?
But there are other problems with your post. You say artists should
Re: not to disrespect the late Val Kilmer but fuck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas an actor/actress isn't just repeating lines. They are emoting so you and I believe they are who they are portraying. They are moving within the scene. They may jump, be suspended from wires, dive into water, or even look as if they are cooking for a role. They have a wide range of things they need to do as an actor/actress. And unlike a combine, they may portray a variety of characters. In the case of Kilmer, he's portray a jet pilot, a gunshooter, a criminal, a PhD candidate working on a laser, and a singer, to name a few. Each of those are distinct from one another and require the person to change how they act.
That's beautiful. You should contact SAG-AFTRA and enlighten them as to your talent.
But you didn't actually answer the question. You expounded on the what actors do, but not why they should be protected. You offered no evidence that a generated character couldn't also do these things, and if so, why or how they might be prevented from doing so. Can you explain why an AI actor couldn't also adapt to different roles? I'm not aware of such a limitation.
The irony is pretty great here. Every member of t
Anime and video games show otherwise. (Score:2)
Expensive meat puppets are not required to entertain. The video game business is already bigger than Hollywood and unlike push content is interactive.
Tech will catch up to then pass meatbag limitations. Those not wanting AI are free to skip it. It's mere entertainment, just kitsch and nothing sacred.
Is AI the next iteration of animated films? (Score:2)
One thing keeps coming to my mind, isn't an AI based film just the next iteration of animated film? Hand drawn to human directed computer graphics to AI directed computer graphics? Perhaps we can maintain the distinction between traditional film a
Re: (Score:2)
Kilmer was an absolute beast when it came to diverse characters. They were all distinct and different, a true method actor.
Acting is just as much art as any other kind of art. I don't have a problem with AI actors, but I do have a problem with an actor who's got a significant body of (good) work licensing their likeness (assuming that's what happened) for AI: it cheapens the earlier work.
Re: (Score:3)
Acting is literally about representing a human being.
If you want genAI to play things in movies, have them play robots.
We have been able to automate automotive racing (Score:2)
But who the fuck would want to watch that? What would even be the point?
I think the problem is we commodify everything and everything is just a product to be sold. The idea of doing something for its own sake and even bei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends.
If you are making a sequel to an existing film, and the film absolutely relies on that person's voice, then okay, I will let it slide (eg Darth Vader's voice in Star Wars is basically impossible to replicate by another actor.) But I will only let it slide for some very specific reasons where recasting would not work.
For example. Star Trek. Kelvin-verse is basically dead because one of the main actors is dead. The only reason you can make a film is with the existing actors. And these films
Re: (Score:2)
Same argument could be said for why do only a few actors get all the big money parts. Why aren't the roles distributed more evenly. Because people sell and I for one wouldn't mind seeing another Val Kilmer movie as long as the cgi is good. He was a decent actor in his day and it's really no different than watching a sequel to most of the 90's movies. The money goes to his daughter.
Re:not to disrespect the late Val Kil but fuck AI. (Score:2)
In addition, is anyone going to note the strangeness of casting Val Kilmer (AI or not) as a Native American in the first place?!
I call dupe! (Score:2)
Going back about 20 years when the idea was to make new Abbott and Costello movies...
And think of all the new books that could be added to your favorite imaginary universe. Replicating the original author's style far beyond our poor human power to add or detract from the style, or even detect that it isn't the original author.
Is AI just the modern form of animated film? (Score:2)
the role should have been recast. a living human should have been able to showcase their talent instead of AI ghosts.
AI might be more appropriately used in indie films? A lower barrier to entry? Maybe more for stunt scenes or otherwise expensive or dangerous things, less for regular dramatic scenes? AI just for background, location scenes, historical scenes, real actors filmed on green screen? There could be scenarios where indie projects can accomplish a lot more.
Also, it might be appropriate to have an entirely different class of film for AI. As we do with animated films. Or is AI just the modern animated film?
But
Creepy (Score:2)
Especially the part at the end, "Don't fear the dead, and don't fear me." The whole clip looks like AI fakery.
Hard pass (Score:2)
Just saw the trailer and...
I have no idea what the movie is about, whether it looks good, or whether I want to see it.
It reads "some stories were too hidden to be found" (and wtf does that mean? And the story was too hidden to be found but you're making a movie of it?), and it's based on a real story.
And a bunch of seemingly disconnected action shots.
Hard pass. I'll stream it if the reviews are any good.
Re: (Score:2)
And a bunch of seemingly disconnected action shots.
That's entirely deliberate. The movie involves North American native characters, so we already know it's another hollywood scab picking exercise. If any meaningful plot were exposed in the trailer, that suspicion would only be confirmed.
Kind of a waste of an AI ghost. If you're going to authorize Val Kilmer for something, make it be the Heat sequel.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of a waste of an AI ghost. If you're going to authorize Val Kilmer for something, make it be the Heat sequel.
Save it for when DC goes full clusterfuck like Marvel has and have his ghost play one of the fifty or so Batmans (Batmen?) that show up.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to think of a single movie or tv show which I love so much I would be happy if they did this to make more... Nope. Can't think of any.
One thing for sure: this will result in a lot more incredibly lame plotlines like "somehow, Palpatine returned".
Sigh. Well, at least I'll save a lot of time and money not going to see movies.
AI generator actors (Score:2)
Trying to think of a single movie or tv show which I love so much I would be happy if they did this to make more... Nope. Can't think of any.
One thing for sure: this will result in a lot more incredibly lame plotlines like "somehow, Palpatine returned".
Sigh. Well, at least I'll save a lot of time and money not going to see movies.
Someone did an AI live action recreation of Johnny Quest [youtube.com], and it looks totally cool.
That's sorta' the reverse of the current article - instead of taking a no longer available actor and recreating him, they're making an actor (who never existed) from scratch to play the part of a cartoon character.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone did an AI live action recreation of Johnny Quest [youtube.com], and it looks totally cool.
It's clearly not real, but cartoons are also clearly not real. And we enjoy cartoons.
Re: (Score:2)
we need more laws (Score:2)
we need a law that requires a visible watermark in films with AI actors.
Re: (Score:1)
Why?
If something is good, it's good. Movies, pictures, books, what-have-you. The tool used to create something is irrelevant, be it a paintbrush, a chainsaw or a computer. The chef who cooked your steak probably didn't butcher the cow himself either.
Do you also want a visible watermark on all films that use green screen backgrounds and computerized special effects?
About the AI version of any character (Score:2)
Friggin' critics (Score:2)
Since when have critics been right about anything? Granted, it's just the trailer, but this looks a lot better than CGI Peter Cushing in Rogue One.
Cool technical demonstration (Score:3)
As a techno-geek, I can appreciate a good demonstration of technological capability. As a person, I can also appreciate that just because we can does not mean we should.
There are other actors. A lot of other actors. I am certain there are several that could have played this part well. Let one of them do it.
Learn the lesson: don't do this again.
what I want to read is (Score:3)
Am I the only one? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not technological, it is mimicry.
When someone somewhere fakes your likeness to scam someone else, all without your knowledge or awareness, then one day you get a court summons and are thrown in jail because the evidence is incontrovertibly good AI, you'll understand. Or maybe your children will understand if you were dead while doing the deed.
TL;DR. AI fakery is not compatible with personal responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Problem (Score:2)
This isn't a Val Kilmer performance, it's an AI performance wearing Val Kilmer's skin and using his voice. There's a difference, even if it's just in the viewer's head.
A little cameo in a series to show the writers haven't forgotten the past work of an actor is nice to see. A hour of screen time is ghoulish exploitation of his legacy by the family.
Why? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He played Jim Morrison in The Doors, for one, and actually sang the part himself. I'm sure you'll respond by panning that performance in defense of your question, but for probably 99% of people alive today, that performance is what is in their heads when they think of Jim Morrison, and they're not wrong.
He did his part to make Heat what it is, on a stage full of the biggest names Hollywood had at the time.
So, yeah. Pretty good, as they go.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, a big star. Last millennium.
I've been living under a rock but can't recall seeing him in anything after Kiss Kiss Bang Bang - he was good in that but even by 2005 we are talking about career reboots.
Unless we're riding the wave of Top Gun nostalgia, this looks like your classic spend $150 million on AI for a $30 million box office return.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He was great in Top Secret and Real Genius. Batman Forever wasn’t bad given the soundtrack and Jim Carrey being over the top. I felt bad for the guy developing throat cancer and having to stop acting.
The purpose of art (Score:5, Insightful)
is not, as many would have you believe, to be found solely in its consumption or appreciation.
Art is a dialogue. It is a conversation between humans--those who feel joy and pain, sorrow and hope; and it is the embodiment of creative expression in which the artist, for all their imperfections and struggle, brings into being something that marks existence--as if to say, "I was once here, in this space that you now observe."
And that is not necessarily pretentiousness or egocentrism. Art is born from a desire to connect with others, across space and time.
The intrinsic problem of "generative AI" as it is presently utilized as a vehicle of artistic expression is that, overwhelmingly, it fails to create a true dialogue, in much the same way that using a chatbot amounts to speaking with nobody but yourself. There may be a director and other humans who are prompting the AI and exerting control over the output, but the lack of human actors and cinematographers means that the result can only ever be a simulation of art, not art itself. It is not until we can create artificial consciousness--machines that experience human emotions and concept of self--that we can ever say that their status can transcend that of mere tools and their product might become art. To be clear, I am not suggesting we should attempt to do so. But what we have today is very, very far away from this.
Maybe a simulation is enough for most people, who think of popular media as nothing more than transitory stories to consume, discard, and forget. That the audience may not have the capacity to respect art as a process, by failing to distinguish what it is and is not, does not invalidate the artist, no more than someone who doesn't understand mathematics or computer programming can decide that it is not worth learning or doing.
The reason why there is a lot of pushback against AI has to do with the preposterous notion that it can (and therefore, should) serve as a substitute for human creativity. Of all of the things that such sophisticated computational models could be used for, the last thing that I would want it to do for me is my thinking and feeling. We should be using technology to make our lives easier and give us more freedom to express ourselves creatively, not less. People who are using it to simulate art have entirely missed the point of why we make art in the first place. Creative expression is not a chore like washing my dishes and scrubbing my toilet bowl. Yes, making art is sometimes painful and difficult and challenging. But that struggle is not something to be eliminated. It is meant to be overcome.
AI apologists--at least, nearly all of those I have met--are, in my view, nearly entirely lacking in understanding of what makes living worthwhile; and those who do understand are intentionally and cynically promoting AI because they stand to gain financially from this position.
Re: (Score:2)
Art is a dialogue. It is a conversation between humans--those who feel joy and pain, sorrow and hope;
I can accept art as communication, but how do you consider it dialogue? A dialogue requires the listener to respond in some way, it's a two way communication. How is the listener answering back to the artist?
Re:The purpose of art (Score:4, Interesting)
It makes more sense as a dialogue if we think of it not so much as a one-to-one conversation, but more like an ongoing, global discourse. After all, movies are not made in a vacuum, and they are--generally speaking--not made for a single specific individual to watch. The artist is informed and shaped by their experiences.
I frame it this way because I want to move away from the "maker"/"viewer" framework--this dichotomy of the creator of an experience versus those who experience the creation. There is a kind of feedback at play that is intrinsic to the ability to create art and to enjoy it. We even see this in cinema--the works of actors (which roles they choose, how they play those roles) are invariably influenced by the culture and sentiments that surround them.
In a strict sense, you are right--it's not as if the artist is directly engaging in a back-and-forth literal conversation. But I think that a more encompassing point of view is useful for contextualizing why generative AI being propped up as "art" is so offensive to some. It doesn't feel "real" to us, and it isn't because the tool is "artificial"--we have computer animated films, for instance. It's because it feels disengaged from that feeling of human connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not here to apologize for the AI slop, I think it's a naked money grab with no artistic value, both overall and also in this case.
That said: Having no artistic value doesn't separate it in any way even from some artistic projects that people tried hard on, let alone your average mass-market focus group-driven cynical schlock.
I think you alluded to this in there somewhere, but my point is that you can't look to the mass market for artistic value. Sometimes some of it makes it in there somehow because tha
This is just the tip of the wedge. (Score:2)
I agree with most of this, but would take it a step further. I think there is very little in this particular use case that is actually artistic. This is a "let's find the most justifiable use of AI and use that to drive the wedge in"
All this is is a wedge. The tip of a wedge.
The same way that government will say they have to remove our online privacy because of child pornography.
Find the smallest, most emotion-riddled, most justifiable use. Get people used to the idea. Then drive it in harder. And ha
I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords (Score:1)
First? (Score:2)
I still remember a fake Peter Cushing and a terrible fake Carrie Fisher cast in Rogue One and a silent young Hamil at the end of one of the star wars franchises. All of the above are more "major" than poor old Val.
Not as good as F&F 7 (Score:2)
Shut up, take my money and make “Top Secret (Score:1)
Not the first time.... Go back to 2022 (Score:2)
A fake is a fake (Score:2)
Unless they have an actor of comparable skills driving things, this will remain flat and boring. All generative AI can do is imitation and averages. For some things that is enough, but it will never be good.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that a driving actor is what's needed here. In illustration I point to the AI-generated psuedo-George Carlin special "I'm Glad I'm Dead". It is not the equal to or a substitute for a genuine Carlin performance, but it is an effective rendition of one of Carlin's styles. Normally he'd have bits in several different signature styles in a given special, and over the years he came to favor rants and lectures. The fake special does in my opinion a fairly convincing job of providing an emulation of
I'll be your huckleberry (Score:2)
Say when!
Peter Cushing (Score:2)
The Complexion ... (Score:2)
So bad, the complexion!
Eighties Kids are For This (Score:2)
Public Domain (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with it, however I would say that per copywrite law for something to be eligible for copywrite it must be generated by a human. Generative AI are not human, so everything generated by them should be in the public domain.
They can put out their movie, but put it in the public domain.
-Matt
What? No Simpsons reference? (Score:2)
It's not about replacing dead actors (Score:1)
Star wars was first? (Score:2)
I mean, Leia was mostly AI in the latest ones.