the role should have been recast. a living human should have been able to showcase their talent instead of AI ghosts.

Especially the part at the end, "Don't fear the dead, and don't fear me." The whole clip looks like AI fakery.

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.

we need a law that requires a visible watermark in films with AI actors.

NOPE

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.

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.

Opinions of native Americans on this film, I know the history of white European settlers here was pretty brutal at times, I recently camped at the Black Kettle grassland in Oklahoma and it was where General Custer murdered an entire tribe of Cheyenne indians including the women & children, I guess karma caught up with Custer at Little Bighorn

That doesn't have a problem with this? Movies aren't documentaries. They've been using special effects since like forever in film. This is just another special effect. This seems to have been done very well. I don't even get the "uncanny valley" feeling even though I know it's AI, so they've obviously put in a lot of work, which shows a lot of respect to the late Val, and his estate/family. I think what will suck is if/when this tech is normalised, and they get lazy and don't give it as much polish. So eve

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 though? Was he even that good to begin with?

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.

The one place where AI will have a HUGE impact on employment is Hollyweed. Given the mediocre slop that passes for creativity, AI will likely improve the quality of entertainment, both the writing of stories and the acting. And just like the internet stripped control of the news production from mainstream news media, AI will demolish the control of studios over the movie industry. Since movie theaters are dying, control of those theaters no longer gives studios control over movie releases. Without the ludic

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.

All the pretend nonsense like this wasn't already done years ago for Fast and Furious 7 is hilarious, couldn't make it clickbait otherwise. That being said it doesn't look as good that movie, and that was made over a decade ago. Nothing like budget cuts I guess.