Hacker News Reader

Comment by Beltalowda | Hacker News Reader

I don't have anything against Bruce Willis as an actor, but ... do we really need to keep him "alive" as an actor? I can understand "faking" Princess Leia because of the Star Wars canon, but why keep Willis (or Tupac, for that matter) around? Plenty of other good actors and musicians out there.

View on HN

I suspect that basing synthesized actors based on real actors is a transitional thing. Studios would rather create actors. So they own the actor outright, and not pay royalties.

How wonderfully dystopian. It reminds me of the show Community where for governance reasons, Subway created a "corpohummanoid" to enroll in the school, however they ran into problems because the actor was a real human who wasn't able to pull off being the manifestation of a corporation all his waking hours.

See also: the first act of the movie The Congress. Princess Buttercup will be producing new work for a long time.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821641/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_16

Good book, not so great movie.

and not pay royalties.

And no actors guilds, unions, make-up artist time, dealing with actors needs, multiple takes and expensive re-shoots that is on developers now. Movie studios won't need to be in a big city any more either. Developers can work from home if their internet is fast enough.

Yeah but Die Hard 6, 7, 314, and so on won't be the same without him.

> ...do we really need to keep him "alive" as an actor?

Does any movie really need $BigStar when $NewTalent could act just as well?

>> do we really need to keep him "alive" as an actor

No, movies are not essential to our survival.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com