A topic of increasing debate is the use of artificial intelligence to digitally create or recreate human portrayals in film and media. Several films have even used A.I. to generate performances for actors who have died, which raises ethical issues regarding consent of using the likeness of human beings. This article will take a dive into instances in which A.I. has been utilized in place of human performances, and discusses whether it’s ethical to copyright someone’s uniqueness as a reusable asset, and also what this means for the future of the film industry.
An example of controversy surrounding A.I. model voices is with the 2021 documentary Roadrunner: A Film about Anthony Bourdain, which told the life story of deceased celebrity chef, Anthony Bourdain. This film found itself in hot water after audiences learned that Bourdain’s voice had been digitally generated to do a voiceover of an email that Bourdain had written. According to The New York Times, the film’s director, Morgan Neville, claimed that Bourdain’s estate and literary agent had given permission for this A.I recreation. However, Bourdain’s second wife, Ottavia Busia, would go on to criticize the decision on Twitter, which throws Neville’s claim of authorization from the estate into question. As for the ethics of this, the main question is one of consent from the actor or their family. Many would say that getting permission from the family is more than enough; especially since it was only an artificial voiceover of quotes that Bourdain had written himself. With that being said, consent is the primary legal element taken into consideration, but others are still concerned with the cultural harm that could come from this.
This topic of A.I. voice generation arose recently in September with the passing of the late great James Earl Jones, who is known for roles in films, such as Field of Dreams, The Lion King, and most famously the Star Wars franchise as the menacing voice of Darth Vader. Before he passed, Jones worked with Lucasfilm and allowed them to make a voice model that replicated his famous Darth Vader performance. While this passes the necessary legal requirements, there is still debate on whether it’s right to keep using this voice model in future projects involving his character. On one hand, this cements Jones’s voice as the one and only voice of Vader, and immortalizes his performance in a positive way. On the other hand, having free reign to keep using his voice deprives other actors from getting the chance to voice the character. Many fear that immortalizing voices like this will set a negative precedent of simply reusing A.I. voices to cut costs rather than finding new and innovative talent.
Regardless of all of these arguments, some people are just uncomfortable with the idea of on screen performances being done by non humans. Despite attempts to cater to audience nostalgia, A.I. recreations of iconic roles, such as Pat Morita in Cobra Kai, Christopher Reeves in The Flash, and Peter Cushing in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story have left many audience members feeling uneasy seeing fan favorite characters appearing in a non-human fashion. But is the unease just due to the uncanny appearances from incomplete technology? Or is it the knowledge that the actor isn’t alive to do their own performance? Only time will tell how people will react to these performances in the future. Advancements in technology, more acclimated audiences, and smoother processes in gaining permission may see the film landscape be completely changed in the coming years because of A.I technology.
Related posts:
Gib Me All Your Money
Are horror movie fans more like the villains or the victims?
Architecture and Exploitation: Beauty is pain?
Is Artificial Intelligence an Artist?
Global Censorship / The People’s Republic of China
“Victimless” White Collar Crime in Movies
Napster’s Artistic Criminality
Powered by YARPP.
Hi Ryan. This was a really thought provoking read. I liked how you tied in real examples like Anthony Bourdain’s documentary and James Earl Jones’s work with Star Wars because it made the debate feel very real and current. I agree with you that consent is the biggest issue here, but even with permission, I think many will think that there is still something unsettling about “resurrecting” people who have passed. Your point about it potentially blocking new talent really stood out to me too and if studios just keep reusing old voices or images, it could stop the industry from growing. At the same time, I can see how it’s amazing to preserve an iconic performance like Darth Vader’s voice. I myself am a huge Star Wars fan, so I may be biased with that. You did a great job showing both sides, and it makes me wonder if the film industry will ever find a balance between honoring legacies and creating space for new creativity.
Ryan,
I thought this was such an interesting post because I remember hearing about the Anthony Bourdain documentary controversy when it came out. On one hand, the idea of using A.I. to recreate his voice for words he actually wrote feels like a way of honoring him, but at the same time it raises huge questions about consent and whether it crosses a moral line. I also think your connection to James Earl Jones is a great example of how complicated this can get. His decision to give permission makes it feel more respectful, but it also makes me wonder if Hollywood will just start reusing A.I. voices instead of giving new talent opportunities. Like you said, something is unsettling about seeing or hearing performances by people who are no longer alive, and I think that unease comes not just from the tech itself but from the feeling that it strips away the humanity of acting.
Hi Ryan, I enjoyed your piece and like how you explore the ethics of using A.I. to recreate deceased performers, using examples like Anthony Bourdain’s voice and James Earl Jones’s pre-approved model to raise questions about consent, originality, and audience discomfort. I especially like how you frame the issue as an ongoing debate rather than a settled matter, inviting readers to reflect on their own stance. To strengthen it further, you might expand on the idea of cultural harm. How normalizing A.I. performances could change our relationship to art, memory, and death. You also could touch more on the economic implications for living actors and creatives. Ultimately, it’s engaging, well-structured, and leaves readers with important questions about the future of film and authenticity in storytelling.
I too feel conflicted about many of the questions and dilemmas you raised in this article. On one hand, I do agree that legally, with the consent of the family, the use of AI recreations can not only preserve and maintain the legacy of certain iconic characters and their actors. But at the same time, I think that it should have its limitations. For example, as you noted, this can take away opportunities from new talent and different, more innovative ways to honor an individual. I also think that this technology and idea have great potential to expand too far. As we have seen, AI can create false images and moments of famous people, and it’s becoming more difficult to differentiate between something that actually happened and did not. This can have a huge effect on living people’s lives and make everyone worry about how to decipher truth from reality.
Hey Ryan, this was a very interesting article, although it honestly makes me uneasy. Using A.I. to recreate actors after they’ve passed feels like it’s done purely for profit and nostalgia, without real consideration for the person being represented. The biggest issue for me is consent. If someone didn’t agree to this while they were alive, it shouldn’t even be on the table. And beyond that, who even gets compensated when a dead actor’s likeness is used? Unless there’s clear permission given beforehand, it feels wrong to treat someone’s voice or image as just another asset to reuse.
I think this raises a lot of interesting questions. I remember watching Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) and seeing the CGI “replica” of Carrie Fisher – and feeling kind of weird about it. I do think it was a little bit due to this “uncanny appearance” you mentioned, but also because of the knowledge in the back of my head that she was in fact dead. I do think this case though makes it a bit tricky to navigate the issue of not hiring new talent. It is a bit difficult to define if that is what the producers should have done in this scenario, as they created this replica to continue Fishers’ legacy in a way, have her fulfill the last time her iconic role would be pictured. I think it would have been met with a lot of criticism if they were to recast her in that part of the film, just because of how large and long-lasting that fanbase has been. It definitely leaves a weird middle ground though, like with your mentioning of Roadrunner and the controversy surrounding that. Overall, I think it is a situation that is bound to have a lot of back and forth, and I think as more AI is used, we can begin to see if major film studios are using it to really cut costs or to honor the deceased.