D
@dilfpickle_
no amount of moral dressing is going to change how sick and greedy this is. the family should be ashamed tbh
2.3K
28
58.3K
@Varietyposted on X
FIRST LOOK: Val Kilmer has been resurrected via AI to star in the new movie "As Deep as the Grave." Kilmer was cast in the movie in 2020, five years before his death. But he was too sick amid his throat cancer battle to ever make it to set. Now an AI version of the actor is appearing in the film, with the full blessing of his daughter, Mercedes: "He always looked at emerging technologies with optimism as a tool to expand the possibilities of storytelling. This spirit is something that we are all honoring within this specific film, of which he was an integral part.” “He was the actor I wanted to play this role,” says writer-director Coerte Voorhees. “It was very much designed around him. It drew on his Native American heritage and his ties to and love of the Southwest... His family kept saying how important they thought the movie was and that Val really wanted to be a part of this. He really thought it was important story that he wanted his name on. It was that support that gave me the confidence to say, okay let’s do this. Despite the fact some people might call it controversial, this is what Val wanted.” https://t.co/5hqnKgaQl5
View original tweet on X →
Community Sentiment Analysis
Real-time analysis of public opinion and engagement
Sentiment Distribution
75% Engaged
61% Negative
Positive
14%
Negative
61%
Neutral
25%
Key Takeaways
What the community is saying — both sides
Supporting
1
Consent is king:
Many argue that if the actor explicitly wanted posthumous use and the family/estate approves, then using their likeness is acceptable—provided the estate is properly compensated.
2
It can be a tribute:
Several replies see AI completions as a beautiful way to honor a final creative wish, finishing stories the actor cared about and giving fans one last performance.
3
Risk of exploitation:
Others worry this creates pressure on estates and invites cash grabs—death shouldn’t become automatic labor, and families could be coerced or commodified.
4
Creative authenticity concerns:
A chunk of people feel an AI recreation won’t match a real actor’s nuance—technically impressive but not nearly as effective to everyone’s eye.
5
This is the future of filmmaking:
Enthusiasts welcome AI actors as an evolution—new storytelling tools, new award categories, and the ability to resurrect stars for new projects.
6
Broader legal and identity questions:
Some voices frame this as more than VFX—AI likenesses raise issues of post‑biological rights, identity, consent longevity and how society treats a person’s digital afterlife.
7
Limited use advocates:
A few want AI confined to screen work—movies and TV—arguing live theatre should remain protected as authentic, human performance.
8
Commercial temptation to resurrect everyone:
Many predict studios will lean into bringing back beloved actors (from Paul Walker to classic stars), prompting excitement for some and alarm for others.
Opposing
1
Digital necromancy is wrong:
A large chunk of replies call using an AI likeness of a deceased actor “ghoulish,” “disgusting,” or “sacrilege,” arguing you should “let the dead rest” and that resurrecting a person’s image reduces them to a commodity.
2
Estate approval isn’t equal to consent:
Many insist that a family’s blessing doesn’t prove the deceased agreed—“no consent” unless it’s explicitly in a will or documented—and that relatives can’t unilaterally decide what the person would have wanted.
3
It’s about money, not legacy:
Numerous commenters suspect financial motives—“she wants the check”—and say the choice reflects exploitation of the dead rather than honoring them.
4
AI can mimic looks but not soul:
Repeated arguments that a generated avatar lacks the actor’s craft, spirit, and interpretive choices—“not Val Kilmer,” just a likeness—so the performance is empty and cheapens the work.
5
Dangerous industry precedent:
People warn this normalizes replacing living talent with AI, costing actors jobs and opening a slippery slope where studios favor synthetic likenesses over real performers.
6
Demand for bans, boycotts and consequences:
Many call for legal limits or outright boycotts—some urge criminalizing the practice, others pledge not to see the film and encourage mass refusal to support AI-resurrected performances.
7
A minority appeal to presumed wishes or artistic intent:
A smaller group accepts the practice if the actor would have approved or if the estate genuinely believes it honors his wishes, arguing the role was written for him and should be respected.
Top Reactions
Most popular replies, ranked by engagement
M
@misaligned_agi
In Hollywood, when you die, they resurrect you with AI and force you to keep working.
1.9K
8
38.3K
A
@arvalis
I do not care how much permission they had to do this, no one should be allowed to do this. It should be illegal to resurrect the visage of dead people with genAI imo
1.8K
10
42.3K
H
@Howlingmutant0
We could have more Val Kilmer movies this way
415
23
5.9K
A
@AJamesMcCarthy
tor themselves was okay with this use before they passed I don’t see a problem with it from a moral standpoint (although I have a feeling it won’t be nearly as effective as a real actor) assuming their estate is appropriately compensated. That said, kinda weird that death is
261
19
16.6K
D
@Donovan_W_G
@Variety https://t.co/IT0L3iIECb
162
0
3.4K
Report an Issue
Found something wrong with this article? Let us know and we'll look into it.