Why Hollywood Should Leave Dead Actors Alone (Guest Column)

When "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" recently opened, audiences didn't see a Chadwick Reanimated Boseman. Instead, the main character's sister, played by Letitia Wright, took over as the superhero. The technology existed for a digitized Boseman to reprise his famous 2018 star turn - but allowing a new, living actor to fill the role was the right move, not just for the franchise, but for the film's support.

Reviving dead actors in film using AI - a growing trend - is bad for the acting community and it's bad for the cinema. So far, Hollywood has thankfully limited its use of these actors. Peter Cushing in "Rogue One", Paul Walker in "Fast & Furious 7", Carrie Fisher in the latest installment of the Star Wars franchise. But long-dead actors are expected to take on bigger roles.

Acting has always been a fiercely competitive profession, which makes the breakthrough important. That's part of why some lament that so many actors are the children of famous Hollywood stars and directors. AI-generated actors exacerbate the challenge by stealing career opportunities from aspiring actors.

Economists generally do not believe that the labor market is a zero-sum game. Yet, in some cases, there is a strict limit to the number of jobs that exist in a field. There are only a limited number of athletes who can play in the WNBA or cellists needed for professional symphony orchestras.

There is no hard cap on the number of TV series or movies made. Still, there are signs the movie market is reaching its limits, with streaming platforms greenlighting fewer projects. If studios can use dead actors – who don't need trailers, hairstylists, or a percentage of box office gross – talented newcomers could be squeezed out of the profession. /p>

Not showcasing new talent is a particular problem if we believe in inclusivity. On-screen representation is moving in the right direction, but could move backwards if casts are made up of earlier eras.

In addition, the public will be deprived of artistic innovations. Just as directing styles evolve, so do the voices of new generations of actors with different values ​​and perspectives. This isn't just a problem for art films that seek to communicate something deep. Most of the movies people see are mainstream movies, where profit considerations are as important as with AI software.

In such situations, the importance of the actor is arguably greater than in movies independent. Indeed, perhaps even more so than directors, Hollywood actors are the best bet for any subversion amid the dictates of focus groups and sequels. A stare or a wry smile can tell us everything we need to know. Actors must say the words given to them, but their gift allows them to express truths in their own way.

A final concern is that allowing the entry of digital look-alikes of past stars will tarnish their legacy. Companies don't care about the integrity of an artist's work. AI-generated actors take someone else's voice and let software engineers, advertisers, and Hollywood executives use it.

Of course, looking back is part of the creative process. We support open culture and enable individuals to use the work of others as inspiration for their own. Still, there's a critical difference between taking a dead individual and throwing them into a new movie and simply borrowing ideas or a few lines from another's novel.

Intellectual property laws are neither the problem nor necessarily the solution. Virtually all states recognize a "publicity right" that exists after death, which means that any actor in their lifetime - or, after death, the actor's heirs - can sell the rights to use the identity. from the actor to the highest bidder. You might think it's in poor taste to use the image of a deceased celebrity to advertise products, like Audrey Hepburn deployed to sell candy bars or Fred...