this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2026
180 points (96.9% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

16439 readers
712 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
givesomefucks@lemmy.world
180
AI brings Val Kilmer back to life for film (lemmy.world)
submitted 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) by Sunflier@lemmy.world to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Kilmer passed away in 2025 after battling throat cancer. Apparently his character will feature in over an hour of the movie.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/val-kilmer-ai-generated-new-movie-rcna264195

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] randamumaki@lemmy.blahaj.zone 67 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

So they're just making money over a dead guy's likeness. Business as usual then.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 7 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

He was going to play the role before he died, and they decided to use AI to recreate his likeness instead of recasting.

So not quite as ghoulish as you might think.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Did anyone ask him if he thought this was ok?

[–] GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago

From what I read, Kilmer gave the filmmakers the right to use his likeness for this purpose.

[–] NickeeCoco@piefed.social 54 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

How does that make it not ghoulish?

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 45 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Not quite as ghoulish. Say 99% as ghoulish.

[–] backalleycoyote@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

“We were gonna skin Val and attach that to an advanced robotics puppet, but the studio said that was 100% ghoulish.”

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 15 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly. I'm not saying it's fine, just not as terrible as you might originally think.

[–] homes@piefed.world 19 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I’m not sure if that’s a distinction worth making in this case

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure if this was a comment worth making, yet here you are.

[–] homes@piefed.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I suppose time will tell ;)

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

How does that make it not ghoulish?

The victim had a choice.

[–] Whirling_Cloudburst@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

When the Lich King gives you a choice, its ethical necromancy.

[–] randamumaki@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

So just holding him to his contractual obligations after death then?

That's not making it any better.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Will his estate see the amount he was contractually obligated for revenue, etc?

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

I'd imagine so, yes.

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago

In that context, that's more ghoulish.