Bruce Willis is a legend of cinema, and he made many of my favorite movies of the 80s and 90s. He stayed relevant and exciting up until very recently.
Then, last year, he started releasing a slew of disappointing "straight-to-DVD" style movies that had him receiving his own award show category in the Razzies (an award show for the worst performances of the year). In 2021, they created the category "worst performance by Bruce Willis in a 2021 movie."
Vulture did an interesting interview with the founders of the Razzies where Bruce Willis comes up.
Then, it came out that Bruce Willis was diagnosed with Aphasia and was losing his ability to speak.
Suddenly, these pieces take on new meaning. They're Bruce getting as much work in as he can before he loses his voice permanently. He's trying to do what he knows how to do to make sure his wife and children are taken care of after he can no longer act.
It doesn't make the movies suddenly "great" but it was enough to get the Razzies to rescind their award.
I don't believe these last films of his dampen his well-earned legacy.
Last year, his digital twin showed up in a Russian telecom ad.
Recently, he's been in the news again for having sold his likeness to a deepfake company. It was reported on the company's website and by The Telegraph, but there are now claims to the contrary as well.
While the jury is still out on if his rights have been sold, I think it's likely you'll see more Bruce Willis deepfake content.
The question becomes, is it the right decision?
If his estate still has final approval - and there is quality control - then what's the harm?
Does the potential ubiquity, or the idea that we can always have another Bruce Willis movie, reduce the value of his movies?
Does allowing deepfakes in cinema (on TV or in film) take away roles from actors who might become stars?
We've already seen actors use deepfakes to reprise a role they did when they were younger - like Luke Skywalker or Leia from Star Wars. It's a different idea to build a new series around an actor who isn't actually acting in it.
These questions pair well with the discussion around AI-generated art and whether it should be considered art.
What do you think?
Comments
Bruce Willis Deepfake: The Smart Decision?
Bruce Willis is a legend of cinema, and he made many of my favorite movies of the 80s and 90s. He stayed relevant and exciting up until very recently.
Then, last year, he started releasing a slew of disappointing "straight-to-DVD" style movies that had him receiving his own award show category in the Razzies (an award show for the worst performances of the year). In 2021, they created the category "worst performance by Bruce Willis in a 2021 movie."
Vulture did an interesting interview with the founders of the Razzies where Bruce Willis comes up.
Then, it came out that Bruce Willis was diagnosed with Aphasia and was losing his ability to speak.
Suddenly, these pieces take on new meaning. They're Bruce getting as much work in as he can before he loses his voice permanently. He's trying to do what he knows how to do to make sure his wife and children are taken care of after he can no longer act.
It doesn't make the movies suddenly "great" but it was enough to get the Razzies to rescind their award.
I don't believe these last films of his dampen his well-earned legacy.
Last year, his digital twin showed up in a Russian telecom ad.
Recently, he's been in the news again for having sold his likeness to a deepfake company. It was reported on the company's website and by The Telegraph, but there are now claims to the contrary as well.
While the jury is still out on if his rights have been sold, I think it's likely you'll see more Bruce Willis deepfake content.
The question becomes, is it the right decision?
If his estate still has final approval - and there is quality control - then what's the harm?
Does the potential ubiquity, or the idea that we can always have another Bruce Willis movie, reduce the value of his movies?
Does allowing deepfakes in cinema (on TV or in film) take away roles from actors who might become stars?
We've already seen actors use deepfakes to reprise a role they did when they were younger - like Luke Skywalker or Leia from Star Wars. It's a different idea to build a new series around an actor who isn't actually acting in it.
These questions pair well with the discussion around AI-generated art and whether it should be considered art.
Bruce Willis Deepfake: The Smart Decision?
Bruce Willis is a legend of cinema, and he made many of my favorite movies of the 80s and 90s. He stayed relevant and exciting up until very recently.
Then, last year, he started releasing a slew of disappointing "straight-to-DVD" style movies that had him receiving his own award show category in the Razzies (an award show for the worst performances of the year). In 2021, they created the category "worst performance by Bruce Willis in a 2021 movie."
Vulture did an interesting interview with the founders of the Razzies where Bruce Willis comes up.
Then, it came out that Bruce Willis was diagnosed with Aphasia and was losing his ability to speak.
Suddenly, these pieces take on new meaning. They're Bruce getting as much work in as he can before he loses his voice permanently. He's trying to do what he knows how to do to make sure his wife and children are taken care of after he can no longer act.
It doesn't make the movies suddenly "great" but it was enough to get the Razzies to rescind their award.
I don't believe these last films of his dampen his well-earned legacy.
Last year, his digital twin showed up in a Russian telecom ad.
Recently, he's been in the news again for having sold his likeness to a deepfake company. It was reported on the company's website and by The Telegraph, but there are now claims to the contrary as well.
While the jury is still out on if his rights have been sold, I think it's likely you'll see more Bruce Willis deepfake content.
The question becomes, is it the right decision?
If his estate still has final approval - and there is quality control - then what's the harm?
Does the potential ubiquity, or the idea that we can always have another Bruce Willis movie, reduce the value of his movies?
Does allowing deepfakes in cinema (on TV or in film) take away roles from actors who might become stars?
We've already seen actors use deepfakes to reprise a role they did when they were younger - like Luke Skywalker or Leia from Star Wars. It's a different idea to build a new series around an actor who isn't actually acting in it.
These questions pair well with the discussion around AI-generated art and whether it should be considered art.
What do you think?
Posted at 08:49 PM in Business, Current Affairs, Film, Gadgets, Ideas, Just for Fun, Market Commentary, Movies, Science, Television | Permalink
Reblog (0)