this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
30 points (96.9% liked)

movies

3285 readers
162 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 24 points 3 days ago

Val Kilmer is dead and will not be appearing. A simulacrum of Val Kilmer will.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 14 points 3 days ago

"Despite the fact some people might call it controversial, this is what Val wanted," Voorhees told Variety.

We'll obviously never know for certain whether Kilmer himself would have approved of this project. His daughter Mercedes Kilmer said she supported the film, and noted that her father was "a deeply spiritual man" who resonated with a "story of discovery and enlightenment."

So there is no evidence that this is what he would have wanted, and Voorhees just said that? When I read that first bit I thought maybe he'd given his blessing before his death, but apparently not. I obviously don't know what he would have wanted, and I hope his family is correct, but even if he authorized it, I think it's gross. I don't like actors for their faces, I like what they bring to the role and AI at least currently does not have the ability to bring anything.

[–] TheImpressiveX@piefed.social 12 points 3 days ago
[–] Toneswirly@beehaw.org 9 points 3 days ago

Companies will rob the graves of musicians and actors and say they are "appearing."

Well, media is "appearing" in my hard drive a lot more these days.

[–] Chippys_mittens@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Everyone involved is going to hell

[–] lemmysmash@beehaw.org 4 points 3 days ago

This is kind of "content" that is not even worth being pirated.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago

Imagine transcending mortality to appear in some future commercial pushing some funko pop NFT pyramid scheme to produce shareholder value for people who claim net zero before they go jet setting to Epstein island because they bought a section of forest that was already there.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Wow. His family sounds lovely.

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

Well Kilmer had to choose between loosing millions or suing his father, and he stupidly lost millions.

[–] 58008@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Can I just put this out there for posterity:

I do not consent to my likeness being DLSS5ed into a movie. I'm a nobody, but they might one day want to make a movie about a fat shut-in with bad teeth, and on that day, they'll surely come a'knockin' on my door. I AM NOT HOME. Let me rest in peace for fuck's sake.

I don't begrudge his family making bank, but everyone else involved in this project is in need of serious psychiatric intervention.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago

“Kill… me…”

[–] HeartyOfGlass@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago

This was bound to happen. Just wait - if this goes unchecked it'll just get baked into actors' contracts.

Can't wait. "Die Hard 10" with an AI Bruce Willis saving an AI Audrey Hepburn. Whatever industry this is, it's gross.

[–] harsh3466@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

If that's what Val Kilmer actually wanted, or agreed to, in sound mind, go for it.

We'll never know what he actually did or didn't want. I'll probably never watch it.

James Earl Jones did it with his voice.

Edit: fixed link formatting.

Edi 2: added that voice bit

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

No, no, no!