A.I. Movie Stars: A Solution in Search of a Problem

The trick to reading the Hollywood Trade Papers is to understand that almost every “news” story you read there was leaked by someone involved with the process, often without studio approval, in order to boost their own personal profile, or the profile of someone they represent. They are press releases masquerading as news stories filtered through reporters who are often friends with the subjects of their stories.

This week a story appeared in the trades (I read it in Variety) about a computer generated AI actress by the name of Tilly Norwood… the “news” that supposedly makes this story worth prominence in Variety is that “Tilly Norwood has attracted the attention of multiple talent agents”, or so claims the AI actress’ creator.

Slow news day, I guess.

Now, obviously this particular story wasn't leaked, Tilly’s creator Eline Van der Velden gave a talk on a panel at something called The Zurich Summit, and was interviewed there by a reporter from Deadline, but you can see the basic constructs of a self-aggrandizing press release leaked for no other reason than to boost the subject’s profile. It’s not “news” that this AI actress has “attracted the attention of agents”… rather it is merely a claim, unsupported by any facts. Now, if she had actually been signed by a reputable agent at a big agency like WME or CAA, that really would be one hell of a story. That Tilly only has “the attention” of anonymous agents, however, tells you everything you need to know… which is that by “agents”, they actually mean some guy in Van Nuys with a Post Office Box at the airport.

And in case anyone needs a reminder of where this story would go if it were true, the WGA went to war with the agencies over TV packaging fees, how do we think SAG members would react if their agents start signing CG actors (check Justine Bateman’s twitter feed for a preview).

But let’s take the story at face value, because this isn’t the first article of this kind we’ve seen in the trades lately... where is this story coming from? Who is asking for computer generated actors to replace human actors?

It’s certainly not the movie studios. Every time the subject of AI replacement of actors comes up, it’s always framed as an economic argument… something like, “movie stars are too expensive and so replacing them with AI actors would save Hollywood money.” And sure, the studios will happily use the threat of AI replacement to try to scare actors, writers and directors whenever it comes time to renegotiate the WGA, SAG and DGA MBAs, but the studios do not want to replace movie stars with AI actors… not really.

It’s true that movie budgets are out of control, but very little of the blame for that can be laid at the feet of movie stars. Harrison Ford and Anthony Mackie are not the reason why “Captain America: Brave New World” cost $400 million and David Corenswet and Nicholas Hoult are not the reason why “Superman” cost $225 million. Rather, one could argue, and I suspect this is a serious conversation happening inside Marvel, DC and Warner Bros. right now, that Mackie, Coresnswet and Hoult weren’t big enough stars to guarantee these movies would be massive international hits. Both films would have been marginally more expensive with bigger name stars in the lead roles, that’s true, but more people would have been interested in seeing those versions of these movies. And when you’ve already committed to spending $400 million to make one movie and $225M to make another, ten or twenty million more to land a real movie star amounts to a rounding error.

This holds true for high profile movies that don’t feature massive comic book IP or enormous special effects action set pieces as well. Take current critical darling “One Battle After Another” by filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson. OBAA is going to wind up being one of the best reviewed films of the year and will likely be a frontrunner for the Best Picture Oscar… the problem is that Warner Bros. spent a ludicrous $140 million on the movie, which means that even after a $22 million opening weekend, PTA’s biggest ever I might add, the studio is staring down the barrel of another massive write-off.

So the logical question, at least where Tilly Norwood is concerned, is how much of the blame for that write-off can be laid at the feet of the movie’s star Leo DiCaprio? If Warner Bros. had replaced Leo with an AI actor (or even a lesser star), the movie would still have cost more than $100 million ($140M minus DiCaprio’s $20M fee) and it’s very unlikely that it would have made even $22 million in its opening weekend. Not without Leo as the movie’s biggest draw. Without a star, the result would have been worse.

So what, exactly, is the argument for replacing stars with AI?

Here’s the real dirty secret behind the idea that replacing stars with AI actors is about reducing the cost of making a movie… if that’s true, then why would a computer generated actor need an agent? Agents only get paid when their clients get paid, so why would any agent want to move away from representing real stars like Leo in favor of representing fake stars like Tilly? The question answers itself… they would only do so if they thought Tilly had the chance to make them as much or more money than a real star like Leo… and if that’s the case, then where are these costs savings going to come from?

Look, I don’t know how to save the theatrical movie business… I don’t even know if it can be saved. But I do know that this is not the answer. Audiences in general are increasingly uninterested in seeing first run movies in theaters. Younger audiences in particular don’t seem that interested in movies at all… they seem to prefer watching content on Netflix, YouTube and Tik Tok. Whatever the myriad reasons (political messaging, cost, convenience) why people are turning away from theatrical movies, the fact is that there’s not a single person in America who would suddenly decide to start going to the movies more often if we would just get rid of all those damned movie stars.

Not a single one.

AI actors are a long con… a grift… another bullshit tech fantasy Silicon Valley is using to drum up another round of sweet, sweet V.C. cash. It’s just another iteration of the same insanity which convinced Hollywood to toss out the theatrical film and ad-supported network TV models in favor of streaming-based subscription fees… a decision which almost everyone in the industry now regrets.

Movie stars are one of the last remaining reasons to actually go out and see a movie in the theater. What we need to be doing is figuring out how to make more movie stars, not eliminating the ones we still have. If we are to have any hope of saving the theatrical movie model, that’s where we will need to start.

The movie star model works. It doesn’t need to be replaced. What it needs, is to be rejuvenated.

If you enjoyed this essay and would like to support the work we do here at The Continental Congress, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or buy me a coffee. Oh and if you happen to run an online entertainment and pop culture publication and need a columnist to write Hollywood opinion pieces on the regular, my DMs are open. Thank you, so much, for your time and your patronage!