Bruce Willis is allowing himself to be deepfaked

[rand thompson]

Bruce Willis is allowing himself to be deepfaked so his 'digital twin' can continue to act after his aphasia diagnosis

by insider

Article
Bruce Willis is allowing himself to be deepfaked so his 'digital twin' can continue to act after his aphasia diagnosis (msn.com)

 

[Brian Timmons]

Kind of reminds me of this article.
https://news.yahoo.com/james-earl-jo...172558029.html

There's no doubt that the technology is fascinating but one would have to be a moron to not see just how much it will likely
get abused in ways too long to count but with results that deepen the madness the world already finds itself in.

Best advice I can muster is to keep eyes, ears and wits wide open on this and the general use of "AI" based technology in
relation to "human being".

For those abusing the technology, algorithms are the 21st century take on plausible deniability.
It's a byte short of saying "the devil made me do it."
If none of the above makes sense now it will for those paying attention.

While there are benign and helpful uses of AI (hopefully soon with RED's AF) there are obviously some uses that might create
a level of harm many of us can't imagine, namely artificially redefining and ultimately replacing humanity.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[rand thompson]

Kind of reminds me of this article.
https://news.yahoo.com/james-earl-jo...172558029.html

There's no doubt that the technology is fascinating but one would have to be a moron to not see just how much it will likely
get abused in ways too long to count but with results that deepen the madness the world already finds itself in.

Best advice I can muster is to keep eyes, ears and wits wide open on this and the general use of "AI" based technology in
relation to "human being".

Algorithms are the 21st century take on plausible deniability.
It's a byte short of saying "the devil made me do it."
If none of the above makes sense now it will for those paying attention.

While there are benign and helpful uses of AI (hopefully soon with RED's AF) there are obviously some uses that might create
a level of harm many of us can't imagine, namely artificially redefining and ultimately replacing humanity.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

Brian,

I agree. I'm wondering how would the financial compensation be distributed. How much would Bruce Willis get and what rights will he have , how much would DEEPCAKE receive for their time and effort in doing this for a movie and what rights will they have and also how much would the Actor who will also be a body double for Bruce and have Bruce's face superimposed on his be compensated and what rights will he have. Also will that actor receive any recognition for his performance in any way.

Also just superimposing Bruce's face on another actor doesn't insure that that actor will duplicate Bruce's acting style, performance and charisma. How well will the Deepfake be implemented. I mean nothing would take you out "The Suspension of Belief" faster than bad Ai .

 

[Brian Timmons]

They're all interesting questions Rand that I'm curious to find more about.

There was a movie called "Looker" (Albert Finney, James Coburn, Susan Day) in the early 80's that touched on some of these issues.
Actresses would get selected for their looks and have a lifelike 3D likeness scanned for
use in commercials with the promise of royalties for life.
Of course, they're eventually killed under mysterious circumstances with the corporation owning their likeness.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[rand thompson]

They're all interesting questions Rand that I'm curious to find more about.

There was a movie called "Looker" in the early 80's that touched on some of these issues.
Actresses would get selected for their looks and have a lifelike 3D likeness scanned for
use in commercials with the promise of royalties for life.
Of course, they're eventually killed under mysterious circumstances with the corporation owning their likeness.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

Brian,

It's funny you mentioned this movie because I have a digital copy of this that I was going to watch today. I always save my Saturdays and Sundays to watch a movie from the 80's or late 70's. It was either this, FX, The Thing, Escape from New York, The Fury, Dracula, Blow Out or Children of a Lesser God. I chose The Fury. But yeah how this all would work would be very interesting. Older Actresses could play the Young Sexy Femme Fatale based on images from their earlier movies and Older actors could be the young womanizing Stud based on images from their earlier movies.

Actor and Actresses could still work in times of illnesses and their families could be compensated after their deaths with something much more than just Royalties. Also how would an agent work? Would one agent represent all of them( Bruce, DEEPCAKE and the actor who would have Bruce's face) or would they each have their own agent? And how would Union Membership work. How would they be credited in Movies?

 

[Brian Timmons]

Brian,

It's funny you mentioned this movie because I have a digital copy of this that I was going to watch today. I always save my Saturdays and Sundays to watch a movie from the 80's or late 70's. It was either this, FX, The Thing, Escape from New York, The Fury, Dracula, Blow Out or Children of a Lesser God. I chose The Fury.

That's quite a list films.

For established actors and actresses there may be some lucrative terms established (likely for a limited period).
Down the line though I have my doubts this will be a good thing.
Cattle call to the slaughter.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[rand thompson]

That's quite a list films.

For established actors and actresses there may be some lucrative terms established (likely for a limited period).
Down the line though I have my doubts this will be a good thing.
Cattle call to the slaughter.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

Yeah, all good movies for their particular Genre. Studios would probably find ways to exploit this system as you already know. They would probably short change Bruce and the Actor whom had Bruce's Face superimposed upon him. I think DEEPCAKE would be of more importance to them. It would be strange if one day an Oscar was given for "Best Deepfake in a Motion Picture Film".

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Why do we even need real actors to begin with? If you really are committed to CGI, then go the whole nine yards. Commercial artists already use CGI models - it's cheaper than hiring a photographer and model.

 

[rand thompson]

Why do we even need real actors to begin with? If you really are committed to CGI, then go the whole nine yards. Commercial artists already use CGI models - it's cheaper than hiring a photographer and model.

You'll still need people like Andy Serkis to model the facial and body movements of those CGI characters like he did for Gollum In the Lord of the Rings and Caeser in the Planet of the Apes. The question you asked above could be something that possibly could be asked in about 10 to 15 years when maybe the CGI is so good that you can't tell if you are seeing a real human or a digitally created one. But I think that will be an ethics question for the movie industry and the entertainment industry to carefully think about. I don't think any computer modeling and or algorithm will ever be able to replicate true human emotions no matter how complex and well thought out they are.

 

[Brian Timmons]

Why do we even need real actors to begin with? If you really are committed to CGI, then go the whole nine yards. Commercial artists already use CGI models - it's cheaper than hiring a photographer and model.

While I think there is a healthy balance that can be made between humanity and AI we need to be
aware of the long term consequences of misusing the tech and identify what that misuse would look like
not just for our protection but for our survival.

Personally I think AI is fine as a means of accurately and benevolently assisting people.
It's a threat if used to manipulate and ultimately replace (or destroy) us.
There are potential cases of both approaches.

I think the biggest threat may not come from some self aware HAL 9000/terminator type of AI but
from humans using AI technology as a means of trying to overtake if not destroy other humans.

There are actually some rather influential people pushing for a "post human" world and this
kind of tech will likely be misused to help achieve that.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

You'll still need people like Andy Serkis to model the facial and body movements of those CGI characters like he did for Gollum In the Lord of the Rings and Caeser in the Planet of the Apes. The question you asked above could be something that possibly could be asked in about 10 to 15 years when maybe the CGI is so good that you can't tell if you are seeing a real human or a digitally created one. But I think that will be an ethics question for the movie industry and the entertainment industry to carefully think about. I don't think any computer modeling and or algorithm will ever be able to replicate true human emotions no matter how complex and well thought out they are.

1. There will always be people who can be used for motion capture, but yes, you do need them for sure.

2. Ethics - all (narrative) cinema is fiction, so I'm not sure that a virtual character or actor is going to be a problem. Lara Croft is a virtual character. Mario and Luigi are virtual characters as well. Etc.

3. Acting isn't about emotions, it's about bodies. What matters is that the audience feels the intended emotions. And a painting, or an animated cartoon - can move us just as much as an actor.

There are actually some rather influential people pushing for a "post human" world and this
kind of tech will likely be misused to help achieve that.

Brian Timmons
BRITIM/MEDIA

That's a worry, but so far it looks like these people are losing. We just have to keep up the pressure and never compromise.

 

[rand thompson]

2. Ethics - all (narrative) cinema is fiction, so I'm not sure that a virtual character or actor is going to be a problem. Lara Croft is a virtual character. Mario and Luigi are virtual characters as well. Etc.

3. Acting isn't about emotions, it's about bodies. What matters is that the audience feels the intended emotions. And a painting, or an animated cartoon - can move us just as much as an actor.

2. I meant "Ethics" as in not putting human actors out of work to save money with CGI Actors. Lara Croft, Mario and Luigi are not Virtual characters as much as they are "Fictional" Characters. No one wants to see a virtual Lara Croft in a Comedy ,they want to see Will Ferrell. No one wants to see either Mario or Luigi in a Drama, they want to see Meryl Streep. Whom would want to see a completely Computer generated Actor with no background of work in whatever Genre they were generated to appear in. if you want to watch a Cartoon any computer generated figure can provide you with entertainment.

3. ACTING IS ALL ABOUT EMOTIONS! If you want to watch a great performance by someone whom has experienced and truly understands all the ups and downs of all of our shared human experiences , I want an actual Human not a CGI character to do that. No Computer Program or Algorithm can quantify the difference in the performance between an actor like Brad Pitt and Robert De Niro or Julia Roberts and Meryl Streep. Whose voices are going to be used for the CGi characters, whose facial expressions, whose body language are you going to use to display all of those intricate subtle emotions of a human being. You relegate acting to just movement and speech but it's so much more than that, if not any Robot could be nominated for an Oscar.

 

[rand thompson]

Here's a Behind The Scenes look at the first AVATAR. It shows what made the performance of the CGI characters of one of the highest grossing Movies ever so compelling, HUMAN ACTORS!!!

 

[Mike P.]

Ironically, Andrew Niccol's S1m0ne is already 20 years old.

James Earl Jones apparently signed over his voice for Vader when he retired the role last week... I presumed it meant a similar thing -- that they'll reproduce his voice digitally/deepfaked from now on. Sign of the times, I guess. I mean, you look at how much MCU movies aren't practical/physical (full characters, not just blue-screen) and it's a pretty good use case demonstrating how it already works in practice (not just a hypothetical).

That said, in a couple of years if you can sign up to artlist.io or whatever and get a Digital Bruce Willis in your movie for $29, it will likely lose its appeal quickly.

 

[rand thompson]

Although James Earl Jones's voice is synonymous with the voice of Darth Vader and it could indeed possibly be simulated digitally, You can just replace his voice with the voice of another actor. It would be the same as a different actor potraying the character of Batman or Supernan. There is no need to clone digitally the original actors whom played those roles. Since Darth Vader is a fictional Character, he has no definitive voice. Only the voice that we have identified with that character for most of our lives. It would be great if James Earl Jones's Voice will be continually honored as the voice of Vader, however it's not necessary nor required to continue the franchise.

Those MCU characters are still voiced by human actors. When those CGI characters have voices that are completely autonomous, then we will be able to truly discuss CGI generated actors replacing Human actors.

I think Artist.io, as you call it, will have to pay a shitload of money to account for the royalties, residues, artistic licenses, copyrights , legal and any other factors I didn't name in order to sale an actor's likeness to the public for their own personal use or projects.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

2. I meant "Ethics" as in not putting human actors out of work to save money with CGI Actors.

Actors aren't owed a job. The good news is that there will always be actors, whether on stage or on screen.

Here's a Behind The Scenes look at the first AVATAR. It shows what made the performance of the CGI characters of one of the highest grossing Movies ever so compelling, HUMAN ACTORS!!!

A cartoon character, or a simple sketch, can convey the same level of emotion. However, the context of the emotion is more important.

 

[rand thompson]

Actors aren't owed a job.

Nor is a 3D Animator. But they are entltled to a way to make a living just like you and anyone else who wants to work, or are your CGI characters more deserving?

The good news is that there will always be actors, whether on stage or on screen.

Well not if you get what you want, the replacement of Human beings with CGI characters that don't have bills to pay or families to feed. So which actors aren't owed a job and should be replaced with CGI characters and which ones do you consider irreplaceable by CGI characters and owed a job?

A cartoon character, or a simple sketch, can convey the same level of emotion.

Cartoons are multiple sketches recorded at different frame rates to simulate movement .Cartoons are for kids and for adults whom don't require more intellectual mental stimulation than cartoons. For the rest of us something more is required than Homer Simpson.

However, the context of the emotion is more important.

Whom is going to give that animated cartoon or CGI character an emotional Context within a Movie?

 

[Zack Birlew]

Even if they scanned all the MCU actors and actresses to be THE FACES of those characters in films moving forward for eternity, there is something to be said for new actors taking up the roles over time, much like Batman and Superman where it provides endless pop culture discussion about who played the character best and what movies did them right, etc. That element would be lost with such a move and even though it may hurt to not see a familiar face in the role anymore, much like we're seeing with the huge surprise excitement for Hugh Jackman to reprise his role as Wolverine in the next "Deadpool" movie even though he had retired from the character, it would be the better thing to recast the character with someone else and move on as letting go would be the most human thing to do.

Now, to have an actor continue their work due to age, health condition or even just time management with the aid of digital deepfake technology, that could make for a case as it is sad to know we won't see another Bruce Willis film and knowing that he would want to keep acting if he could, this tech could help solve that problem.

Business-wise it makes sense to have the option as well because say there are three companies that want to have an actor for a movie, a TV show, and a brand name commercial campaign, the actor can only schedule one at a time so they can offer their deepfake as an alternative to do the performance or to perform the work until they themselves may become available, that would be quite a handy resource for actors, even if it brings up the issue of actual acting performance versus digitally replicated effect through another actor and their choices. It's tricky and there's a ton of pitfalls that could ultimately leave it as a VFX tool rather than a complete industry shaking performance movement.

 

[rand thompson]

Even if they scanned all the MCU actors and actresses to be THE FACES of those characters in films moving forward for eternity, there is something to be said for new actors taking up the roles over time, much like Batman and Superman where it provides endless pop culture discussion about who played the character best and what movies did them right, etc. That element would be lost with such a move and even though it may hurt to not see a familiar face in the role anymore, much like we're seeing with the huge surprise excitement for Hugh Jackman to reprise his role as Wolverine in the next "Deadpool" movie even though he had retired from the character, it would be the better thing to recast the character with someone else and move on as letting go would be the most human thing to do.

Now, to have an actor continue their work due to age, health condition or even just time management with the aid of digital deepfake technology, that could make for a case as it is sad to know we won't see another Bruce Willis film and knowing that he would want to keep acting if he could, this tech could help solve that problem.

Business-wise it makes sense to have the option as well because say there are three companies that want to have an actor for a movie, a TV show, and a brand name commercial campaign, the actor can only schedule one at a time so they can offer their deepfake as an alternative to do the performance or to perform the work until they themselves may become available, that would be quite a handy resource for actors, even if it brings up the issue of actual acting performance versus digitally replicated effect through another actor and their choices. It's tricky and there's a ton of pitfalls that could ultimately leave it as a VFX tool rather than a complete industry shaking performance movement.

Zack,

I agree, technology should be used to aid us not fuck us. It is sad that we may never see another movie with the actual Bruce Willis in it or a Darth Vader with James Earl Jones's voice. Everyone has their "Time In the Sun" and then it's gone and someone else takes their place, another human not some CGI character.

Allowing an actor or actress that may be suffering from a medical condition or other impairments to continue to work until they're better, or till the end of their lives if it is a terminal illness, with Deepfaking would be a much better use for the technology than putting an actor with Tom Cruise's face in funny or precarious situations.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I always say, the problem with having virtual actors on set is none of them can say, "hey -- I have an idea! What if we do this other thing instead, and we do it from the left instead of the right?" There's no ad-libbing with virtual characters. You basically wind up with a very high-grade animated film. They tried that back in 2001 with Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (which I worked on a little bit), and the filmmakers were convinced their movie was going to change Hollywood, and they spend a fortune building a big studio in Hawaii to pursue their dreams. It did not go well.

I'm not anxious for camera operators, cinematographers, set builders, gaffers, and electricians to be put out of work with "virtual" production. I think a hybrid approach where they use digital backgrounds, as is being done on some Marvel and Lucasfilm shows and films (like ILM's Stagecraft technology) can work, but that requires the cooperation of every department, plus a lot of time and money to design and approve these "virtual sets" in advance.

Note that Bruce Willis' family has denied the reports that they sold the digital cloning rights to his likeness:

Bruce Willis Denies Reports He Sold the Rights to His Face
Amid Rumors He Would Be Getting a Digital Double in Movies
https://www.usmagazine.com/entertain...s-to-his-face/