That's an inherent limitation of using actual actors. The appearance, delivery, voice, mannerisms are a package. VFX fuckery aside, if you want Anthony Hopkins' acting or voice, it comes with Anthony Hopkin's face and body. Animated film lessens this. You still have the voice work and delivery, but now the character can look like anything. So you don't need someone who looks the part. And it's not like that's uncommon in live-action movies already. Darth Vader had one actor doing movement and one doing the voice in the 70s. Every damn Marvel movie has someone doing face acting composited onto a digital body. Body doubles were never uncommon. And then there's mocap for CG characters.
There's nothing about current production that would prevent a character from being one person doing the motion capture, another person doing the voice, using the face of another person and the body of another. If you're using AI in the first place, why not use unrelated models for all of them? Especially in adaptations. You don't need to cast, model the "actor" around the descriptions in the source material.
We tunnel vision on how new tech can be used to keep doing the same thing we're already doing because they can't think outside of the framework they're familiar with.
looking at particular people they've come to enjoy
I've never met Tom Cruise. If you told me every movie and television appearance I've seen of him was AI, not a single one of my "interactions" with him would actually change. I'd still like the performances I liked and dislike the ones I disliked. Celebrities exist as a social reference point shared by a large group of people. If all you're doing is watching media, Tom Cruise might as well be as real as Hatsune Miku. It's the expectation of consistency that's important, not the mechanism. And that's not even addressing the bit about how many celebrity's off-screen personas are constructs of PR firms. They're more than halfway to fiction already.
That's an inherent limitation of using actual actors. The appearance, delivery, voice, mannerisms are a package. VFX fuckery aside, if you want Anthony Hopkins' acting or voice, it comes with Anthony Hopkin's face and body. Animated film lessens this. You still have the voice work and delivery, but now the character can look like anything. So you don't need someone who looks the part. And it's not like that's uncommon in live-action movies already. Darth Vader had one actor doing movement and one doing the voice in the 70s. Every damn Marvel movie has someone doing face acting composited onto a digital body. Body doubles were never uncommon. And then there's mocap for CG characters.
There's nothing about current production that would prevent a character from being one person doing the motion capture, another person doing the voice, using the face of another person and the body of another. If you're using AI in the first place, why not use unrelated models for all of them? Especially in adaptations. You don't need to cast, model the "actor" around the descriptions in the source material.
We tunnel vision on how new tech can be used to keep doing the same thing we're already doing because they can't think outside of the framework they're familiar with.
looking at particular people they've come to enjoy
I've never met Tom Cruise. If you told me every movie and television appearance I've seen of him was AI, not a single one of my "interactions" with him would actually change. I'd still like the performances I liked and dislike the ones I disliked. Celebrities exist as a social reference point shared by a large group of people. If all you're doing is watching media, Tom Cruise might as well be as real as Hatsune Miku. It's the expectation of consistency that's important, not the mechanism. And that's not even addressing the bit about how many celebrity's off-screen personas are constructs of PR firms. They're more than halfway to fiction.
That's an inherent limitation of using actual actors. The appearance, delivery, voice, mannerisms are a package. VFX fuckery aside, if you want Anthony Hopkins' acting or voice, it comes with Anthony Hopkin's face and body. Animated film lessens this. You still have the voice work and delivery, but now the character can look like anything. So you don't need someone who looks the part. And it's not like that's uncommon in live-action movies already. Darth Vader had one actor doing movement and one doing the voice in the 70s. Every damn Marvel movie has someone doing face acting composited onto a digital body. Body doubles were never uncommon. And then there's mocap for CG characters.
There's nothing about current production that would prevent a character from being one person doing the motion capture, another person doing the voice, using the face of another person and the body of another. If you're using AI in the first place, why not use unrelated models for all of them? Especially in adaptations. You don't need to cast, model the "actor" around the descriptions in the source material.
We tunnel vision on how new tech can be used to keep doing the same thing we're already doing because they can't think outside of the framework they're familiar with.
looking at particular people they've come to enjoy
I've never met Tom Cruise. If you told me every movie and television appearance I've seen of him was AI, not a single one of my "interactions" with him would actually change. I'd still like the performances I liked and dislike the ones I disliked. Celebrities exist as a social reference point shared by a large group of people. If all you're doing is watching media, Tom Cruise might as well be as real as Hatsune Miku. And that's not even addressing the bit about how many celebrity's off-screen personas are constructs of PR firms. They're more than halfway to fiction.