Fake actor deepens anxiety over AI in Hollywood

That’s Tilly Norwood.  She seems nice.

Norwood isn’t real — the brunet woman who appears in a comedy sketch on her Instagram page is in fact a computer-generated composite.

I did not know that “brunet” was a word.  It’s the masculine form of “brunette”, just as “blonde” is the feminine form of “blond”.  For some reason, the journalist made the intentional mistake of writing “brunet woman”.  Doesn’t matter, AI is knocking on her door as well.

Tilly Norwood isn’t nice.  She isn’t anything.  She is an AI generated character.  Her creator says that Tilly will soon be signed by a talent agent.

That statement doesn’t make sense because Tilly isn’t anything.  Her image could be copyrighted, but a new Milly Norwood could be generated with blue eyes.  A Philly Norwood could be generated as a centaur.  Party in the front, and saddle in the back.  I’d watch that TV show.  

Hollywood celebrities aren’t pleased.

Scary. Terrifying. Deeply misguided.

Those were among the visceral reactions this week from Emily Blunt, Whoopi Goldberg, Natasha Lyonne and many other actors and filmmakers over the sudden fame of Tilly Norwood.

It’s interesting that the visceral reactions were from those three performers.

Whoopi Goldberg is a mean-spirited retard.  The only downside to an AI Whoopi is that she could never be vanquished. 

Natasha Lyonne has been on TV as long as Whoopi has, and is most known for her distinctive voice.  Lyonne is currently directing a movie, Uncanny Valley, that makes use of ethical AI.  So she knows something about the potential.

Emily Blunt is known for being blunt.  She says things that you aren’t supposed to say.  She called someone fat, didn’t think an actor must be disabled to play a disabled character, and doesn’t read for characters who are “strong female characters” because they are never very good.

AI actors would be scary for current actors.  I don’t see the downside for the rest of us.

The live-action Snow White movie was practically all CGI, except for the actors.  Do we need CGI deer, rabbits and forests?  In some cases, but CGI over practical sets or stunts, hasn’t made for better movies.  The MCU makes so much use of CGI and green screens, that actors may not even know who they are talking to when performing.

The live-action Snow White has an IMDB rating of 2.1 and lost at least a $100 million.  The lead actor, Rachel Zegler, made comments that substantially helped tank the movie.  If everything else is CGI, why risk using human actors?

The TV show, Stranger Things, features a cast of younger actors facing strange events.  It premiered in 2016, and wrapped up after five seasons in 2025.  The young actors aged enough to make the story less plausible. 

Being a child actor is notoriously tough.  There are many books, article and documentaries on the topic, but here is an IMDB list of child actors who were messed up by the experience. 

Replacing child actors with AI actors seems like all upside with nobody is losing a career.

There are several popular book series that would make great movie franchises, but Hollywood takes a big chance that actors will be unable to remain in the role for the entire series.  There were seven books in the original Harry Potter series.  The series tells one epic story, but since Harry ages in the books,

Warner Bros Studio took a chance on the project.  Eight movies were produced in ten years, and the franchise had a total box office of $7.6 billion on a production budget of $1.2 billion.

The Harry Potter franchise is dwarfed by the MCU franchise.

The MCU is three times bigger, but the Harry Potter franchise is based upon the antics of a half-dozen 12 year olds as they mature.  Replacing any of them would be a big risk.  The MCU started with an adult actor in an origin movie, and it wasn’t until the sixth movie that they came together.  More characters and actors were added so the franchise had more flexibility if an actor could continue in the series.

Even with adult actors, the MCU encountered difficulties.  As actors became more popular, they demanded larger salaries to the point that later MCU movies often lost money.  TV shows for the franchise had to introduce new characters or use minor characters because the major superheroes are played by popular actors who may cost too much or not be able to commit to a TV show.  Over time, even adult actors can age out of a demanding role.

The author Terry Pratchett wrote the Discworld series consisting of 41 books in a rich fantasy universe.  The first book came out over 40 years ago.  It has a large fan base, but not the rabid fan base that can come from a well-written new series like Harry Potter or The Game of Thrones.  Discworld is a well-developed world with dozens of characters who don’t appear in every book.  So far, several books have been adapted for television, but no studio could take the risk of making this a franchise.  AI characters could be the answer.

I understand why current actors would object to AI actors because it will take roles away from them.  Using an existing actor’s appearance without permission would be blatantly unethical.  A new AI actor like Tilly Norwood is more of a artist’s creation like animation.  Actors have no grounds to stop the development of a new art form.

We don’t know how the technology will develop.  If it becomes less complex and expensive, it may provide opportunities for many more people to be creative.  That is a positive development even though most of the amateur content may be low quality.  New voices will be heard and new stories told.