• jballs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    27·
    11 小时前

    This is so weird to me. Are we really at a point where we need recreate old, dead actors instead of giving new actors a shot?

    Like could you imagine if we had this technology a hundred years ago and just decided that Charlie Chaplin was the best, so let’s just clone his likeness and put him in everything? You’d never have a John Wayne, a Robert DeNiro, a Harrison Ford, or a Tom Hanks. Just a recreation of Charlie Chaplin in every major movie - because it’s cheaper and less risky to recreate someone old with AI than it is to take a chance on someone new.

    This timeline is dumb as hell.

    • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
      42·
      5 小时前

      In fairness to the studio, he had accepted the role before he became ill and was unable to actually film for the role. They also had the permission of his family, and I believe the actor himself.

  • hOrni@lemmy.world
    148·
    21 小时前

    They’ve finally done it. Even if You’re dead, you still have to fucking go to work.

  • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
    22·
    18 小时前

    Usually i wonder “Oh, xyz is still alive?”, feels werid to wonder “Oh, xyz is dead? When did that happen?”

    Is this a getting-old thing? :(

    • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      6·
      14 小时前

      Dude had a lot of health problems. Top Gun was his last hurrah, and it was difficult for him. It’s why his screen time was so short, and why they ended up honoring him with a funeral scene. If I remember correctly, he died while the film was being made, so they added that scene last minute.

  • dan1101@lemmy.worldEnglish
    35·
    20 小时前

    I would say that if no one paid to see the movie maybe studios would quit doing this, but there are usually a lot of people who don’t know or don’t care about any given shitty thing, so things get slowly worse.

    • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
      163·
      20 小时前

      That’s the flow of the world. The vast majority doesn’t know and doesn’t care. We all get what we deserve in the end though…

        • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
          33·
          16 小时前

          Well in the context of using shitty things that will shit on us in the end, it’s what we deserve too :)

          • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
            2·
            16 小时前

            Why? Its basically tautological that using shitty things will lead to shitty outcomes, we wouldn’t call them shitty in the first place otherwise, but what’s the mechanism by which this causes the users of those shitty things to deserve that outcome?

            • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
              1·
              13 小时前

              The mechanism? Ignorance. In the simple sense of “play stupid games, win stupid prices”. If you use a thing you absolutely don’t understand, and it bites you in the ass…well?

              • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
                1·
                12 小时前

                That just describes that doing some thing, the “stupid games”, merely causes some negative effect, the “stupid prizes”, not that the person playing those games deserves the results of their actions. To put it another way, if they deserve them, then if hypothetically speaking the person plays the stupid games but for some reason the stupid prizes never result, then there is something morally wrong with that situation and the world would be better had things gone as expected. If they dont deserve them, then the person playing the stupid games just got lucky that time and thered be no benefit to trying to force the negative result that didnt happen to occur after all.

    • Monument@piefed.worldEnglish
      9·
      18 小时前

      It looks like someone tried to make Tom Cruise look like Val Kilmer.

      Maybe if we see an era of AI reducing people’s individuality and throwing them all into an uncanny valley of blended-together appearances, we’ll wind up with a resurgence of interest in actors with atypical features.